I
EPA REGION 4
January 2005
Federal Partnership Resource Guide
Irownfields
Yellow
The largest brownfield
redevelopment in the U. S.
Brownfields: Your Key to Revitalization
-------
Region 4 Brownfields Yellow Pages
January 2005
The Brownfields Yellow Pages: Federal Partnership Resource Guide is published by Region 4
of the U.S Environmental Protection Agency. For more information on the Brownfields Program,
please visit EPA Region 4's Brownfields web site at www.epa.gov/region4/waste/bf/
Or Contact:
EPA Region 4 Brownfields Program
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 562-8661
Cover Photos: Atlantic Station in Atlanta, Georgia, the largest brownfield redevelopment in the United
States. Residential units under construction; a 23-story office tower anchored by SouthTrust Bank.
-------
Region 4 Brownfields Yellow Pages
Contents
Appalachian Regional Commission 5
Corporation for National and Community Service
Americorps 7
Department of Agriculture 9
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service 11
Department of Agriculture
National Rural Development Partnership 16
Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration 18
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration 21
Department of Defense 24
Department of Defense
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 26
Department of Education 28
Department of Energy 30
Department of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 32
Department of Housing and Urban Development 34
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management 37
Department of the Interior
National Park Service 38
Department of the Interior
Office of Surface Mining 42
Department of Justice 44
Department of Justice
Community Relations Service 46
Department of Labor 48
Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration 50
Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration 53
Department of Transportation
Federal Transit Administration 55
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 59
Federal Housing Finance Board 61
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 63
U.S. General Services Administration 70
U.S. Small Business Administration 72
-------
Federal Partnership Resource Guide
Introduction
The Brownfields Program
A brownfield, as defined in the Small Business Liability and Brownfields Revitalization Act of
2002, is "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."
Confronted with hundreds of thousands of brownfields in this country, nearly every community
has been impacted in some way by the potential health hazards and urban blight they represent.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency launched the Brownfields Economic Redevelopment
Initiative in January 1995 to empower states, communities and other stakeholders in economic
redevelopment to work together in a timely manner to prevent, inventory, assess, safely clean up
and sustainably reuse brownfields. In January 2002, the President signed the Small Business
Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act" to formally establish and expand the
brownfields program. The goals of the Brownfields Initiative in affected communities will be
realized through a cleaner environment, new jobs, an enhanced tax base, and a greater sense of
optimism about current and future revitalization efforts.
Title II of the Act, The Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Program,
provides grant funding to support site characterizations and assessments, planning related to
brownfield sites, and site remediation. Grants (cooperative agreements) are awarded annually.
Site characterization and remediation grants are awarded to eligible entities on a community-wide
or site-by-site basis in amounts up to $200,000. Job training grants are up to $200,000, and grants
for capitalization of revolving loan funds may not exceed $1,000,000.
The Brownfields National Partnership
EPA has established partnerships with federal agencies, states, cities, and other organizations to
assure a coordinated strategy for addressing brownfield issues. In July 1996, the Interagency
Working Group on Brownfields was formed as a forum for federal agencies to exchange
information on brownfields-related activities. More than 20 federal departments and agencies are
now participating in the Brownfields National Partnership Agenda. These agencies offer technical
and other assistance to selected communities. Collectively, they have invested more than three
billion dollars in brownfields projects.
The Federal Partnership Resource Guide
The Brownfields Yellow Pages will serve as a resource for individuals and organizations interested
in accessing federal agencies actively pursuing brownfields solutions.
-------
Appalachian Regional Commission
Web Site: http://www.arc.gov
The Mission of the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is to be an advocate and partner
with the people of Appalachia to create opportunities for self-sustaining economic development
and improved quality of life. ARC was established by Congress in 1965 to support economic
and social development in the Appalachian Region. The Commission is a unique partnership
composed of the governors of the 13 Appalachian states and a presidential appointee
representing the federal government. Grassroots participation is provided through local
development districts, which are multi-county organizations with boards made up of elected
officials, businesspeople, and other local leaders. ARC undertakes projects that address the five
goals identified by the Commission in its strategic plan to fund projects in the following areas:
education and workforce training programs, highway construction, water and sewer system
construction, leadership development programs, small business start-ups and expansions, and
development of health care resources.
Resources Available for Community Development
A large portion of ARC's Area Development funds is used for water and sewer system service
extensions to industrial parks in support of local efforts to create and retain jobs in rural
Appalachia. In the past, several of these projects have involved brownfields sites. Additionally,
ARC has partnered with the National Association of Local Government Environmental
Professionals (NALGEP) to conduct regional workshops in Appalachia that encourage
Brownfields redevelopment. ARC entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in FY 2000 for the coordination of policies and
activities in support of Brownfields assessments, cleanup, and redevelopment. In FY 2002, ARC
approved 5 projects for over $1,352,000 to be administered by EPA.
ARC commits to:
1. Explore potential contract with NALGEP for
• Conducting two additional regional brownfields workshops in FY 2003
• Conducting several community workshops in ARC economically distressed counties that would
specifically help communities take advantage of available resources in developing existing
brownfields that would lead to the creation/retention of jobs
Providing technical assistance to ARC's Local Development Districts in a variety of ways that
foster greater awareness of the potential Brownfields resources available to rural areas
-------
2. Continue to encourage ARC's state partners to use their Area Development funds for projects
that create/retain jobs in Brownfields redevelopment areas
3. Reaffirm EPA/ARC MOU commitments, which include:
Providing support, including technical assistance, information sharing and workshops, to increase
awareness of brownfields cleanup and redevelopment programs and benefits
Financial and technical assistance to Appalachian communities, local development districts and
other grassroots organizations to develop proposals for integrating brownfields assessments and
cleanup with economic development planning
• Coordination of joint activities between Appalachian states, local development districts, and EPA
field staff to assist the implementation of brownfields redevelopment projects at the state level
• Financial and technical assistance to Appalachian communities to help leverage funds for
assessment, cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields
Collaboration on joint projects or proposal reviews for competitions sponsored by either agency
Headquarters Contact
Anne B. Pope
Federal Co-Chairman
Appalachian Regional Commission
1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20009-1068
(202)884-7660
(202) 884-7693 Fax
Email: apope@arc.gov
-------
Corporation for National and Community Service
AmeriCorps
Web Site: http://www.americorps.gov
AmeriCorps is a network of national service programs that engage more than 50,000 Americans
each year in intensive service to meet critical needs in education, public safety, health, and the
environment. AmeriCorps members serve through more than 2,100 non-profits, public agencies,
and faith-based organizations. They tutor and mentor youth, build affordable housing, teach
computer skills, clean parks and streams, run after-school programs, and help communities
respond to disasters. Created in 1993, AmeriCorps is part of the Corporation for National and
Community Service (CNCS), which also oversees Senior Corps and Learn and Serve America.
Together these programs engage more than 2 million Americans of all ages and backgrounds in
service each year.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
AmeriCorps*State and National
More than three-quarters of AmeriCorps grant funding goes to Governor-appointed State
Commissions, which distribute and monitor grants to local nonprofit agencies. The balance goes
to national nonprofits that operate in more than one state. Organizations receiving grants are
responsible for recruiting, selecting, and supervising AmeriCorps members participating in their
programs. Grantees include national groups such as Habitat for Humanity, the American Red
Cross, and Boys and Girls Clubs, as well as many small faith-based and community
organizations.
AmeriCorps *VISTA
For more than 35 years, AmeriCorpsVISTA members have helped bring individuals and
communities out of poverty. Members serve full-time, working to fight illiteracy, improve
health services, create businesses, increase housing opportunities, and bridge the digital divide.
In fiscal 2001, approximately 6,000 AmeriCorps*VISTA members served in 1,200 local
programs.
AmeriCorps *NCC
AmeriCorps*NCC is a 10-month, full-time residential program for men and women between the
ages of 18 and 24. AmeriCorps*NCCC combines the best practices of civilian and military
service to bring new leadership and team building resources to local communities. Priority is
given to projects in public safety, public health and disaster relief.
-------
Brownfields Partnership Role
1. Facilitates the placement of a VISTA volunteer in every Brownfields Showcase
Community
2. Facilitates the recruitment of a VISTA volunteer for all of the EPA's Brownfields
Assessment/Cleanup, Job Training, and Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund grant
recipients
3. Promotes EPA's Brownfields Program grants to all communities served by AmeriCorps
volunteers
4. Offers volunteer labor for Brownfields sites
Regional Contact
Heather Pritchard, Assist. Director
AmeriCorps
60 Executive Park South
Atlanta, GA 30329
(404) 327-6846
(404) 327-6848 Fax
Email: hpritcha@dca.state.ga.us
-------
Department of Agriculture
Web Site: http://www.usda.gov
The U.S. Department of Agriculture was founded in 1862 as the "people's department."
Today, USDA's mission is to enhance the quality of life for the American people by supporting
the production of agriculture; ensuring a safe, affordable, nutritious, and accessible food supply;
caring for agricultural, forest, and range lands; supporting the sound development of rural
communities; providing farm and rural residents with economic opportunities; expanding global
markets to include agricultural and forest products and services; and working to reduce hunger in
America and throughout the world.
Additional information is available at http://www.usda.gov
Partnership Role
To promote Brownfields projects, some USDA field offices are working with Empowerment
Zones (EZs), and Enterprise Communities (ECs) to provide educational programs and training
for brownfields landscaping projects (such as Master Gardeners, pesticide applicators, and youth
development workshops). USDA also has contacts in urban Showcase Communities to monitor
the success of USDA projects. USDA provides technical support to communities that include
greenways and other land conservation projects. Rural communities and mine-scarred lands near
or adjacent to our National Forests can also take advantage of existing USDA programs.
Commitments
USDA commits to:
1) Working with EPA and other federal partners to assist with the redevelopment of
brownfields sites located in rural communities or near mine-scarred lands
2) Establishing a USDA-wide Brownfields Subcommittee
3) Developing a roadmap for EPA Brownfields Showcase Communities to be placed on
USDA's web site
4) Developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with EPA to address issues of
common concern
5) Continuing support of communities that want to convert existing brownfields into natural
open space parks, tree-covered linear parks, and other land conservation projects
6) Assisting rural and urban brownfields communities in applying for USDA grants and
loans
-------
Headquarters Contact
Blake Velde, Senior Environmental Scientist
USDA Hazardous Materials Management Group
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Mailstop: 9100
Washington, DC 20250-9100
(202) 205-0906
(202)401-4770
Email: blake.velde@usda.gov
10
-------
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Web Sites: http://www.urbanforestrysouth.usda.gov and www.interfacesouth.org
The USDA Forest Service provides financial, technical, and related assistance in urban and
community forestry "to state foresters or equivalent state officials" under the authority granted in
Section 9 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, PL 95-331, as amended. The
agency also has authority to "conduct, support, and cooperate" in research in "rural, suburban,
and urban areas" through Section 3 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of
1978, PL 95-307, as amended.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
Urban & Community Forestry (U&CF) Assistance Program
The mission of the U&CF program is to promote conservation and management of forests and
related natural resources in cities, with a focus on obtaining the highest social, environmental,
psychological and economic benefits.
The U&CF program is delivered through the state forestry agencies. They provide financial
assistance in the form of urban and community forestry cost-share grants to local governments,
educational institutions, communities, and non-profit groups. The program awards competitive,
matching grants for projects that meet criteria established by the national U&CF Assistance
Program and any additional state guidelines. Awards are made on a 50 percent cost-share basis.
The grants provide the opportunity for local communities to develop or expand their forestry
programs and build lasting capabilities to manage their urban natural resources. Examples of
projects that have been funded by this program include tree inventories, urban forestry
management plans, outdoor classrooms, urban forestry brochures, publications or videos,
conferences and workshops.
Program Purposes
To increase public understanding of the economic, environmental, social, and psychological values of our
urban and community forests and their related natural resources in urban and urbanizing areas
To improve education and technical support for proper tree selection, planting, maintenance, and protection
To enable the development of self-sufficient local urban and community forestry programs which will result
in community sustainability and enhance the quality of life
11
-------
To develop and maintain an urban and community forestry information network that is supported through
examples of accomplishments combining technology with research-based partnerships
Program Requirements
The grantee state or local government agency, non-profit organization, public university or
school is required to match the grant on a 50-50 basis with non-federal dollars, in-kind services
(volunteer time) and/or materials. The grantee is also required to keep accurate records for
reporting, invoicing, and documenting the project's completion. Interested applicants should
check with their state forestry agency or its local equivalent for specific requirements of their
state or local government.
NUCFAC Grants
The National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC) is the official
advisory body of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on urban forestry issues.
NUCFAC sponsors the Challenge Cost-Share Program that supports urban community forestry
activities with a national impact.
Website: www.treelink.org/nucfac
Southern Center for Urban Forestry Research and Information
The Southern Center for Urban Forestry Research and Information was formed to help facilitate
the exchange of information between researchers and communities across the Southern U.S. for
the proper management of trees and forests where people live, work and play.
Website: www.urbanforestrysouth.usda.gov
Southern Center for Midland-Urban Interface Research and Information
This Center, also known as Interface South, was developed by the USDA Forest Service's
Southern Region and the Southern Region Research Station to heighten awareness and provide
information about wildland-urban interface issues. Critical interface issues include fire,
watershed management, wildlife conservation and management, and land use planning and
policy.
Website: www.interfacesouth.usda.gov
How to Access Partner Resources
The USDA Forest Service Southern Region is comprised of 13 states: Alabama, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Contact your state forestry agency for information about the
grant proposal open season. For a current list of contact names in your state call the regional
office or go to www.urbanforestrysouth..usda.ga
12
-------
Headquarters Contact
Susan Mockenhaupt
U&CF National Coordinator
USDA Forest Service - STOP Code 1123
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250-1123
Phone: (202) 205-1007
Fax: (202) 690-5792
Email: smockenhaupt@fs.fed.us
Regional Contacts
Edward Macie
Regional U&CF Program Manager
USDA Forest Service, Southern Region
1720PeachtreeRd.,NW
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 347-1647
Fax: (404) 347-2776
Email: emacie@fs.fed.us
Iris Magaly Zayas
Urban Forestry Specialist
Phone: (404) 347-1650
Fax: (404) 347-1650
Email: izayas@fs.fed.us
Nancy Stremple
Urban Forestry Specialist
Phone: (404) 347-1647
Fax: (404) 347-2776
Email: nstremple@fs.fed.us
Dudley Hartel
Center Manager
Southern Research Station
320 Green Street
Athens, GA 30602-2044
Email: dhartel@fs.fed.us
Annie Hermansen, Center Manager
Southern Center for Wildland-Urban Interface
Research & Information
P.O.Box 11806
Building 164
MowryRoad, GA32611
Phone: (352) 376-3271
Fax: (352)376-4536
Email: ahermansen@fs.fed.us
13
-------
Southern Urban Forestry Coordinators
ALABAMA
Neil Letson
Alabama Cooperative Extension System
513 Madison Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36130-2550
Phone: (334) 240-9360
Fax: (334) 240-9390
Email: letsonn@forestry.state.al.us
ARKANSAS
Patti Erwin
Arkansas Forestry Commission
2780 N. Garland Avenue
Fayetteville, AR 72704
Phone: (479) 442-8627
Fax:(479)442-2117
Email: perwin@arkansas.usa.com
FLORIDA
Sean Archer
Florida Division of Forestry
3125 Conner Blvd.
Tallahasse, FL 32399-1650
Phone:(850)414-8602
Fax:(850) 921-6724
archers@doacs.state.fl.us
GEORGIA
Susan Reisch
Georgia Forestry Commision
6835 James B. Rivers Dr./Memorial Dr.
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
Phone: (678) 476-6227
Fax: (678) 476-6229
Email: sreisch@gfc.state.ga.us
Partnership Coordinator
Myrt Phillips
Georgia Forestry Commision
P.O. Box 819
Macon, GA 31298-4599
5645 Ruggins Mill Road
Dry Branch, GA 31020
Phone (478) 751-3 527
Fax:(478)751-3553
KENTUCKY
Sarah Gracey
Kentucky Division of Forestry
627 Comanche Trail
Frankfort, KY 40601-1798
Phone: (502) 564-4496
Fax:(502)564-6553
Email: sarah.gracey@mail.state.ky.us
Partnership Coordinator
Adrian Frazier
Email: adrian.frazier@mail.State.ky.us
LOUISIANA
Bonne Stine
LA Dept. of Agriculture & Forestry
P.O. Box 1628
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Phone: (225) 925-4500
Fax: (225) 922-1356
Email: bonnie_s@ldaf state.la.us
Federal Express Mail
5825 Florida Blvd.
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Partnership Coordinator
Tom Campbell
Phone: (504) 483-4795
Fax:(505)483-4133
Email: tom_c@ldaf.state.la.us
MISSISSIPPI
Rick Olson
Mississippi Forestry Commission
301 Lamar Street - Suite 300
Jackson, MS 39201
Phone: (601) 359-1386
Fax:(601)359-1349
Email: rolson@mfc.state.ms.us
14
-------
MS Partnership Coordinator
Walter Passmore
Phone: (601) 359-4021
Email: wpassmore@mfc.state.ms.us
NORTH CAROLINA
Nancy Stairs
NC Division of Forest Resources
DENR
1616 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1616
Phone: (919) 733-2162, Ext. 253
Fax:(919)715-5247
Email: nancy.stairs@ncmail.net
Federal Express Mail
512 Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
SOUTH CAROLINA
Liz Gilland
SC Forestry Commission
P.O. Box 21707
Columbia, SC 29221
Phone: (803) 896-8864
Fax:(803)896-8880
Email: lgilland@forestry.state.sc.us
TENNESSEE
Bruce Webster
Division Forestry
Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 40627, Melrose Station
Nashville, TN 37204
Phone:(615)837-5436
Fax:(615)837-5003
Email: bwebster@state.tn.us
15
-------
Department of Agriculture
National Rural Development Partnership
Web Site: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/nrdp
Congress formally authorized the National Rural Development Partnership (NRDP) in
2002, recognizing the organization's^ years of success in providing of a forum where a
broad range of rural institutions can come together to communicate, cooperate and
collaborate on critical community needs. Under the umbrella of USD A's Office of
Community Development, the Partnership consists of 40-plus State Rural Development
Councils (SRDCs) that act as catalysts for developing and carrying out innovations and
improvements in rural America. The National Rural Development Coordinating
Committee brings together senior officials from federal agencies and key national
organizations to provide support and direction for SRDCs and to coordinate rural policies
and programs at the national level. A national knowledge-sharing network provides
technical assistance and professional development opportunities aimed at strengthening
SRDCs.
SRDCs support rural institutions in the achievement of their development and
revitalization goals by:
• Providing technical assistance on a wide variety of development issues
• Creating opportunities to ensure the sustainability of rural communities
• Helping to design and implement solutions to persistent and emerging rural
problems
• Ensuring that the "rural voice" is heard when state and federal policies and
regulations are developed
• Making critical information on programs, professional networks, and rural
markets available to communities and organizations
• Developing collaborative partnerships to increase the value of public and private
resources
Headquarters Contact
Nate Watson Jack Shaw
USDA Office of Community Desk Officer
Development Southeast Regional Councils
1400 Independence Ave., SW Phone: (202) 401-1918
Mail Stop 3203 Fax: (202) 260-6225
Washington, DC 20250-3203 Email: jshaw@ocdx.usda.gov
Phone: (202) 690-4746
Fax: (202) 260-6504
Email: nwatson@ocdx.usda.gov
16
-------
Regional Contacts
Florida Rural Development Council
Catherine Hanks
Acting Executive Director
155 Research Road
Quincy, FL32351
Phone: (850) 875-7196
Fax:(850) 875-7197
Email: cchanks@mail.ifas.ufl.edu
Georgia Rural Development Council
Joe Whorton
Executive Director
225 West Broad Street
Athens, GAS0601
Phone: (706) 583-2736
Fax: (706) 425-3080
Email: j whorton@rural georgi a. org
Mississippi Rural Development
Council
Wirt Peterson
Council Chair
Executive Director, Southwest
Mississippi
Planning and Development District
100 S. Wall Street
Natchez, MS 39120
Phone:(601)446-6044
Fax:(601)446-6071
Email: wirt@netdoor.com
North Carolina Rural Development
Council
Kenneth Flowers
Executive Director
301 N. Wilmington Street
4301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-43 01
Phone: (919) 733-4979
Fax:(919)715-9593
Email: kflowers@nccommerce.com
South Carolina Rural Economic
Development Council
Walter E. Harris
Executive Director
1201 Main Street - Suite 1600
Columbia, SC 29201
Phone: (803) 737-0449
Fax:(803) 806-3439
Email: wharris@sccommerce.com
17
-------
Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration
Web Site: http://www.doc.gov/eda
Congress created the Economic Development Administration (EDA) pursuant to the Public
Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (as amended). The administration's purpose is
to generate new jobs, help retain existing jobs, and stimulate industrial and commercial growth in
economically distressed areas of the United States. EDA provides grants for infrastructure
development, local capacity building, and business development to help communities alleviate
conditions of substantial and persistent unemployment and underemployment in economically
distressed areas and regions.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
Public Works
Through investments in locally developed public works infrastructure projects, EDA will help
communities establish and support private sector businesses. Grant funds can be used for major
construction projects, such as water and sewer lines and public facilities that encourage private
investment. Site assessment remediation can be funded through these grants provided they are
not more than 10 percent of the total budget (with the exception of housing).
Planning
EDA will help communities build the capacity to focus on long-term economic challenges by
developing Economic Development District organizations. These organizations are often
coordinating entities for various federal and state programs.
University Centers
EDA will encourage universities to integrate programs of higher education into the local
community for the purpose of promoting private-sector job creation and economic development.
Trade Adjustment Centers
EDA will offer effective, cost-shared professional assistance to trade-injured firms. EDA
currently supports a nationwide network of twelve Trade Adjustment Centers that help U.S.
manufacturing firms injured by imports to develop strategies for competing in the global market
place.
Economic Adjustment Program
This program assists communities that have been impacted by military base closures, coal
industry downsizing, timber industry issues, severe job loss, out-migration, and
18
-------
underemployment impacts. In addition, this program is utilized for implementing investments in
communities devastated by natural disasters.
Revolving Loan Funds
EDA will provide revolving loan funds, which provide opportunities for local investment in
commercial development projects, creating community-based jobs. Upon repayment, principal
and interest remain in the community for re-lending and further economic development activity.
Local Technical Assistance
EDA's local technical assistance grants help fill the knowledge gaps that inhibit communities
from responding to development opportunities or solving specific economic problems. A
common purpose of these grants is to determine the feasibility of proposed economic
development investments.
National Technical Assistance and Research
EDA will fund proposals that increase knowledge about or demonstrate innovative economic
development techniques as well as measure program performance. Assistance is intended to
provide resources, often through intermediary organizations that give technical assistance to
local and state economic development organizations and practitioners.
How to Access Partner Resources
The EDA's resources can be accessed through the state's economic development representative
(EDR) or the regional EDA office.
Headquarters Contact
Dr. David Sampson
Assistant Secretary
EDA
Dept. of Commerce
14 Street & Constitution Ave., NW
Room 7804
Washington, DC 20230
Regional Contacts
William J. Day, Jr.
Regional Director
401 Peachtree Street, NW
Suite 1820
Atlanta, GAS0308-3510
Phone: (404) 730-3002
Fax: (404) 730-3025
Email: wdayl@eda.doc.gov
ALABAMA
Bobby Dennis
401 West Peachtree Street, NW
Suite 1820
Atlanta, GA 30308-3510
(404) 730-3020
Email: bdennis@eda.doc.gov
FLORIDA
Willie C. Taylor
401 West Peachtree Street, NW
Suite 1820
Atlanta, GA 30308-3510
Phone: (404) 730-3032
Fax: (404) 730-3035
Email: wtaylor5@eda.doc.gov
19
-------
GEORGIA
LolaB. Smith
401 West Peachtree Street, NW
Suite 1820
Atlanta, GAS0308-3510
(404)730-3013
Email: 1 smith2@eda. doc, gov
KENTUCKY
Bobby D. Hunter
771 Corporate Drive, Suite 200
Lexington, KY 40503-5477
(859) 224-7426
Email: bhunter@eda. doc.gov
MISSISSIPPI
Gilbert Patterson
401 West Peachtree Street, NW
Suite 1820
Atlanta, GA 30308-351-
(404) 730-3000
Email: gpatterson@eda.doc.gov
SOUTH CAROLINA
Patricia M. Dixon
U.S. Dept. of Commerce - EDA
P.O. Box 1707
Lugoff, SC 29078
(803)408)-2513
Email: pdixon@eda.doc.gov
TENNESSEE
Tonia Reed
401 West Peachtree Street, NW
Suite 1820
Atlanta, GA 30308-3510
(404) 730-3026
Email: treed@eda.doc.gov
20
-------
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Web Site: http://www.noaa.gov
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) mission is to describe and
predict changes in the earth's environment and conserve and manage wisely the Nation's coastal
and marine resources.
Under the authority of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), NOAA provides financial
and technical assistance to state coastal management programs to support waterfront
revitalization initiatives. States have the flexibility to address their most pressing coastal issues,
and many states have supported the revitalization of urban waterfronts and the reuse of
waterfront sites impaired by contamination. The National Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
Program is a voluntary partnership between the federal government and U.S. coastal states and
territories. The CZM program focuses on efforts to: protect the nation's coastal zone; assist states
in their responsibilities for coastal zone management; develop special area management plans;
and encourage the participation and coordination of all public and private stakeholders that affect
the coastal zone.
NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration/Coastal Resources Coordination (CRC) Program
strives to reduce the risk of hazardous waste contaminants on coastal and marine habitats by
developing remedies to protect and restore threatened natural resources. The CRC Program can
provide technical assistance on site assessments for evaluating aquatic ecological risks to fish
and shellfish and recommend approaches to cleanup and restore impacted coastal habitats.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
Funding Provided Through the CZM Program
Funding through the CZM Program supports activities such as planning, engineering and site
designs, and feasibility studies. In addition, Section 306A of CZMA provides funding to coastal
states to acquire land or to fund low-cost construction projects to enhance public access to the
coast or urban waterfronts.
Technical Assistance Through the Coastal Resource Coordinator (CRC) Program
CRCs work is to protect and restore NOAA trust resources at all types of hazardous waste sites,
including federal facilities, government-funded cleanup sites, and sites where the state is in
charge of the cleanup. CRCs are located in EPA regional offices and with a team of multi-
disciplinary experts, the CRCs help EPA define and mitigate ecological risk through the
following activities:
21
-------
Providing information to EPA about the sensitive habitats, fish, and other species that live,
spawn and feed in the affected area;
Describing contaminants of concern and the ways the contaminants could reach natural
resources;
Designing scientifically sound sampling strategies to determine the nature and extent of
contamination and potential adverse affects;
Predicting and measuring the effects of contaminants on natural resources;
Developing site-specific contaminant cleanup levels that will protect NOAA resources and the
environment;
Recommending cost-effective approaches for assessment, cleanup and habitat restoration;
Weighing the effectiveness of different cleanup options; and
Designing remedial effectiveness monitoring plans to ensure that the remedy protects the
environment and natural resources.
Headquarters Contact
Kenneth Walker
U. S. Department of Commerce/NOAA
1305 E. West Highway - Rm. 11346
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301)713-3113x157
(301) 713-4367 Fax
kenneth. walker@noaa. gov
Coastal Resource Coordinator for Region 4
Tom Dillon, Ph.D.
US EPA Region 4/NOAA
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 562-8639
State Coastal Zone Management Contacts
Alabama
Coastal Area Management Program
ADECA, Costal Programs Field Office
1208 Main Street
Daphne, AL 36526
(334) 626-0042
(334) 626-3503
Georgia
Department of Natural Resources
Coastal Resources Division
One Conservation Way, Suite 300
Brunswick, GA 31520-8687
(912)264-7218
(912) 262-3143 Fax
22
-------
Florida
Ralph Cantral
Florida Coastal Management Program
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
(850) 922-5438
(850) 487-2899 Fax
Email: ralph.cantral@dca. state.fl.us
South Carolina
DHEC
Office of Ocean & Coastal Mgmt.
13 62 McMillan Ave.
Suite 400
Charleston, SC 29405
(843) 744-5838
(843) 744-5847 Fax
Mississippi
Department of Marine Resources
Jan Boyd
1141 Bay view Avenue
Suite 101
Biloxi MS 39530
(228) 374-5000
(228) 374-5008 Fax
North Carolina
DEHNR
Division of Coastal Management
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919)733-2293
(919) 733-1495 Fax
23
-------
Department of Defense
Web Site: http://www.dod.gov
The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), through its work in communities affected by military
base realignments and closures (BRAC), is experienced in economic readjustment activities.
DOD's primary tools for its economic readjustment projects are the Defense Economic
Adjustment program and the BRAC Program. These programs govern DOD's efforts to close
surplus military facilities and return them to local communities, assisting the community to
remediate and redevelop sites. The Office of the Secretary of Defense coordinates DOD's
Brownfields efforts, operating through the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and
Environment)/Office of Economic Adjustment and the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Environment).
Resources Available for Community Development
DOD is included in the Brownfields Federal Partnership primarily in an advisory capacity,
lending it economic readjustment experience to the development and evolution of EPA's
Brownfields Economic Readjustment Initiative.
DOD commits to:
1. Working with EPA and USAGE to clean up and redevelop closed and realigned DOD
bases to return them to productive reuse
2. Renewing the Department's commitment to long term stewardship
3. Linking pertinent DOD web sites to EPA's Brownfields web sites
Headquarters Contact for Base Cleanup
Kurt Kratz
Director of Environmental Cleanup
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Installations and Environment (I&E)
Department of Defense
3C765
The Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-3400
(703) 697-5372
(703) 695-4981 Fax
Email: kurt.kratz@osd.mil
24
-------
Headquarters Contact for Base Reuse
Joe Cartwright
Associate Director
Office of Economic Adjustment
Department of Defense
400 Army Navy Drive
Suite 200
Arlington, VA 22202
(703) 604-5844
(703) 604-5843 Fax
Email: ioseph.cartwright@osd.mil
25
-------
Department of Defense
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Web Site: http://www.usace.army.mil
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is made up of approximately 35,000
civilians and 650 military men and women. USAGE military and civilian engineers, scientists
and other specialists provide responsive and environmentally responsible planning, engineering,
and construction services in support of national economic and environmental goals. With a
diverse workforce of biologists, engineers, geologists, hydrologists, natural resource managers
and other professionals, USAGE provides engineering solutions to the nation's most complex
development and environmental problems, such as the restoration of the Everglades. A vital part
of the U.S. Army, USAGE provides support to military posts worldwide, contributing to the
quality of life of American soldiers and airmen. The agency also has major responsibilities in
response to natural and national disasters, and in the regulation of the nation's waters and
wetlands.
Specific missions include:
Planning, design, construction and operation of water resources projects for navigation, flood
control, hydropower, environmental protection and restoration, fish and wildlife enhancement,
water supply and water quality, and other related purposes (Civil Works)
Design, construction, and management of military facilities and the Army and Air Force, and the
management of millions of acres of Army lands (Military Construction)
Design and construction management support for other Defense and federal agencies (Interagency
and International Services)
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
Financial Management Services
USAGE provides financial management services, including cost accounting, economic analysis
and budget planning.
Engineering Services
USAGE provides engineering services, including civil, mechanical, electrical, environmental and
structural. USAGE employs innovative technologies developed by its large research and
development laboratories and from other sources.
26
-------
Investigation and Assessment Activities
USAGE provides site investigation and assessment services, including environmental,
geotechnical and cultural investigations; soil and water testing; health and safety support;
environmental assessments; feasibility studies; groundwater modeling; asbestos and lead
abatement; Phase I site assessments; GIS capabilities; RI/FS capabilities; Due Diligence Audits;
and archaeological and cultural resource investigations.
Planning Services
USAGE provides planning services, including water resource planning, land use/master
planning, architecture/interior design; mapping services; real estate planning; appraisal and
acquisition services.
Other Management Services
USAGE provides general management services, including project and construction management;
contract administration; and scheduling.
How to Access Partner Resources
Congress generally funds USAGE for traditional Civil Works programs. USAGE also provides
services to other local and state agencies (on a limited basis) as well as to other Federal agencies
on a cost-reimbursable basis. USAGE has a variety of Civil Works Authorities that could be
utilized for projects to restore and protect the environment. These authorities require cost
sharing with a local sponsor, but also provide a mechanism to leverage and increase the
effectiveness of available finances of state and local agencies in meeting their goals.
Regional Contacts
Dennis Barnett
(404) 562-5225
(404) 562-5233 (fax)
dennis.w.barnett@usace.army.mil
Tom Billings
Interagency Program Manager
(404)562-5211
(404)5 62-5 147 (fax)
tom.billings(g),usace.army.mil
Mailing Address:
US Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
61 Forsyth Street, SW, Room 9M15
Atlanta, GA 30303-8801
27
-------
Department of Education
Web Sites: http://www.ed.gov and www.nochildleftbehind.gov
The Department of Education's mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote
educational excellence throughout the nation.
The Department promotes educational excellence for all students in the following ways:
• Providing financial support to states and local agencies in areas considered of national priority
• Promoting challenging standards
• Involving families and communities in schools
• Providing information on the research-based educational practices
• Ensuring post-secondary education is affordable
• Providing high-quality statistics and evaluations of federal programs
The principles embodied in No Child Left Behind legislation focus on: 1) accountability, 2)
parental choice, 3) local control, and 4) research-based practices. The Department of Education
encourages the use of funds by states or communities in programs with these basic principles in
mind.
The Department of Education is committed to sharing information about Brownfields
redevelopment goals with state and local education programs, and educational organizations and
institutions. The Department will also encourage local partnerships at the Brownfields pilot
communities, which help focus on education needs in areas such as literacy, vocational and
technical training, school-to-career experiences, and out-of-school youth and civic participation.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
Grants
Grants are available to education agencies and institutions to strengthen teaching and learning
and prepare students for citizenship and lifelong learning. Grants are available for literacy,
demonstrated academic achievement, and self-sufficiency training for adults. The Adult
Education State Administered Basic Grant Program is the major source of federal support for
basic skills under the Adult Education Act. Basic grants to states are allocated by formula, based
upon the number of adults over the age of compulsory school attendance that have not completed
high school in each state. Over the last several years, adult education programs increasingly have
28
-------
sought to meet the broad needs of their clients by coordinating with other programs serving the
same population.
Student Loans and Grants
Student loans and grants to help pay for costs of postsecondary education.
Other Support
Other support services aid statistics, research, development, evaluation and dissemination of
information.
How to Access Partner Resources
You can access information regarding grants, student loans and other support services through
the web site. You may also want to contact directly your local technical school, community
college or university, as well as the State Department of Education or Council on Higher
Education. Further, you can contact the person listed below for additional information regarding
grant applications.
Regional Contact
Dr. S. Anne Hancock
Secretary's Regional Representative
U. S. Dept of Education
61 Forsyth St., SW
Suite 19T40
Atlanta, GA 30303
404) 562-6225
(404) 562-6520 Fax
29
-------
U.S. Department of Energy
Web Site: http://www.eere.energy.gov
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), officially established in 1977, is a leading science and
technology agency where research supports national energy, national security and environmental
quality. At DOE laboratories, scientists and engineers conduct breakthrough research in energy
science and technology, high-energy physics, superconductive materials, acceleration
technologies, material sciences, and environmental sciences in support of DOE's mission. As
part of the Department's stewardship of energy resources, DOE facilitates the cleanup of
contaminated DOE sites. It is through these cleanup efforts that DOE is involved in the
Brownfields Initiative, as DOE sites are often classified as Brownfields. DOE has made
environmental quality and health issues a number one priority for DOE facilities. As part of its
energy efficiency efforts, DOE encourages the concept of Brightfields, applying energy
efficiency and renewable energy to brownfield sites.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
DOE supports the Brownfields Initiative by sharing information about its unique site remediation
technology and reuse experience, and by providing funding for information sharing and
exchange. DOE commits to:
1. Linking the President's National Energy Policy with Brownfields
2. Promoting the construction of energy efficient buildings and the use of distributed and renewable
energy at brownfield sites
3. Bringing technical assistance through the Rebuild America Program
4. Preparing a list of Brownfields successes at DOE sites incorporating energy efficiency
5. Developing regional relationships with federal partners
6. Assisting other federal agencies with GIS and infrastructure needs
7. Continuing to work on the refinement and development of environmental remediation tools,
remedy selections, and life cycle costs associated with institutional controls
8. Continuing to support research and development activities
9. Assessing DOE owned property to determine if the sites could be better used
30
-------
Regional Contact
Steve Hortin, Project Manager
Community Initiatives
U.S Department of Energy
75 Spring Street - Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 562-0593
(404) 562-0537
Email: steve.hortin@ee.doe. gov
Headquarters Contact
Mark Ginsberg, Bd. Of Directors
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewal
U.S. Dept. of Energy - EE - 11
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Rm. 6C-036
Washington, DC 20585-0121
(202)586-1394
(202) 586 2096 Fax
Email: mark.ginsberg@ee.doe.gov
-------
Department of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Web Site: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is a federal public health
agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. Headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia, ATSDR has 10 regional offices consisting of three ATSDR staff members, who are
located in each of the EPA regional offices, plus an office for liaison work with EPA
headquarters in Washington, D. C. ATSDR was created by the Superfund legislation of 1980 to
prevent or mitigate adverse human health effects and diminished quality of life resulting from
exposure to hazardous substances in the environment. ATSDR performs this function through
various health-related activities, including the evaluation and assessment of environmental
sampling data collected at sites; the performance of epidemiological, surveillance and other
studies; various health education activities; and applied research designed to further our
understanding of how hazardous chemicals affect public health.
ATSDR's long-range goal for the Brownfields program is to enhance the capacity of local and
State health departments to protect the public health in areas near Brownfields sites. ATSDR
works closely with the National Association of City and County Health Officials in this
endeavor.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
Review and Assess Environmental Sampling Data
ATSDR can review and assess environmental sampling data and other site-related information to
determine if past, current or future exposure to hazardous substances might have public health
consequences. In essence, ATSDR or the state Health Department can provide an independent
opinion on site conditions and offer recommendations on measures to ensure the site is
characterized adequately and developed and reused in a safe manner. In those rare cases where it
appears that significant exposure to hazardous chemicals is occurring or did occur, ATSDR may
conduct an exposure investigation (an exposure investigation uses bio-medical and
environmental sampling to better characterize the public health significance of site-related
exposures).
Provide Health-Related Information
ATSDR can provide health-related information on specific hazardous substances, coordinate a
response to a real or perceived elevated incidence of disease near a site, and help individual
workers or community members find experienced, private medical attention for significant
hazardous substance exposure.
32
-------
How to Access Partner Resources
No award is made. The extent of ATSDR's involvement at an individual site will depend on the
health issues in question, the ability of ATSDR's state and local health department partners to
adequately address those issues, and ATSDR resource capabilities.
Regional Contacts
Bob Safay Carl Blair
Senior Regional Representative Regional Representative
(404)562-1782 (404) 562-1786
safay.robert@epamail.epa.gov blair.carl@epamail.epa.gov
Ben Moore
(404) 562-1784
moore.ben@epamail.epa.gov
ATSDR Region IV
c/o US EPA Region IV
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8909
(404) 562-8689 Fax
ATSDR Atlanta Hotline: (800) 447-1544
Headquarters Contact
Steven L. Jones
Senior Regional Representative
ATSDR Liaison Officer to EPA Headquarters
Office of Regional Operations
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
MC5204G
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 603-8765
(703) 603-8987 Fax
Email: sxi6@cdc.gov
33
-------
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Web Site: http://www.hud.gov
In 1999 HUD executed a Memorandum of Understanding with EPA, which commits both
agencies to implement strategies that will revitalize urban areas and return them to productive
uses. For fiscal year 2002, $25 million, in Brownfields Economic Development Initiative Funds
was available through the HUD's SuperNOFA.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
Other HUD programs that can be utilized to assist communities in the cleanup and development
of Brownfields include the following:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) is a formula program that allocates 70
percent of grants to units of general local government and 30 percent to States for the funding of
local community development programs.
The primary objective of the program is to develop viable urban communities by providing
decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities.
Activities undertaken with the grants must meet one of the three broad national objectives: 1)
benefit low and moderate income persons; 2) aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and
blight; or 3) meet other particularly urgent community development needs that the grantee is
unable to finance on its own. In addition, over a one, two or three-year period, at least 70
percent of all CDBG funds received by a grantee must be used for activities that benefit persons
of low and moderate income. Through the Consolidated Plan process, recipients select eligible
activities that are appropriate to their needs and that reflect local priorities; and they determine
how their performance will be measured.
Eligible Recipients
All States receive finds under the States CDBG Program. Under the Entitlement Program,
grantees are those cities, counties and other local governmental entities (Boroughs, Townships)
that qualify to receive funds on the basis of one of two formulas. Components of the formulas
include population, extent of poverty, housing overcrowding, growth lag, and age of housing.
Funding Cycle
Grants are provided on an annual basis in this non-competitive program.
34
-------
Section 108 Programs
Under the Section 108 program, state and local governments receiving CDBGs can borrow up to
five times their annual grants to carry out economic development projects and other
revitalization activities. Governments borrowing funds guaranteed by Section 108 must pledge
their current and future CDBG allocations as security for the loan, as well as additional
collateral.
Eligible Recipients:
State and local governments that qualify to receive CDBG funds can apply for Section 108 Loan
Guarantee funds.
Funding Cycle:
Applications for loan guarantees are accepted year-round.
Economic Development Initiative Brownfields (EDI)
HUD awards competitive BEDI grants to local and state governments. The BEDI may be used
to provide additional security for a Section 108 Loan Guarantee, thereby reducing the exposure
of the CDBG funds, for project costs, or to reduce the interest rate.
Lead Based Paint (LBP) Hazard Control Program
The LBP program provides competitive grants to states and local governments to be used for
privately owned housing and for housing units on Superfund/Brownfields sites. The grants can
be used for a broad range of activities to reduce dangers from lead-contaminated dust, soil and
paint in private homes and apartments built before 1978 that are owned or rented by low-income
families. In the FY 2002 funding cycle, $80 million was available.
Eligible Recipients:
Local and State governments.
Funding Cycle:
The deadline for applications for LBP grants is set forth in the SuperNOFA, which is issued each
year.
The SuperNOFA for FY2003 was issued in April 2003. Information for 2004 SuperNOFA is not
currently available.
Regional Director
Laura P. Pelzer
Office of the Regional Director
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
The Wanamaker Building
100 Penn Square East
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)656-0616x3106
(215) 656-3445 Fax
laura_p._pelzer@hud.gov
35
-------
Technical Guidance
The CDBG program is authorized under Title I of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974, Public Law 93-383, as amended; 42 U.S.C.-5301 et seq. Program regulations are at
24 CFR 570. HUD's CDBG Electronic Policy Guidance Library provides the regulations,
program notices, and other relevant information in electronic form at the Internet address:
www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/library/index.cfm
The Office of Block Grant Assistance in HUD's Office of Community Planning and
Development administers the program.
Headquarters Contact
Sue Miller, Director
Entitlement Communities Division
4517* Street, SW
Washington, DC 20410
202-708-1577
202-401-2044 Fax
36
-------
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Web Site: http://www.hud.gov
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has a complex and far-reaching mission in the
Department of the Interior. The vast acreage and myriad natural and cultural resources that the
BLM manages as the Federal Government's largest landowner, combined with the complexities
of its multiple use mission, present unique challenges and opportunities. The BLM administers
approximately 260 million acres for recreation, commercial activities, cultural resources,
biological habitats, and wilderness.
Resources for Community Redevelopment
Because of past commercial activities, such as mining and landfills, BLM has many
contaminated sites. With the rapid population growth of many western States, some of these
sites are now located within or on the edge of towns and cities. These contaminated sites are
often the only non-developed land in the surrounding area and are attractive as greenspace or for
recreational purposes. Most of these sites pose little risk to human health and the environment
and are therefore not a priority for BLM's cleanup program; however, local communities and
municipalities have expressed interest in acquiring these lands for redevelopment and
recreational purposes.
DOI (BLM) commits to:
1) Examining various means of surmounting the barriers posed by Section 120 (h) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) requiring
Federal agencies to clean up all land prior to transfer of the property, and the new Brownfields
legislation prohibiting Brownfields grants from being used on Federal property in order to help
facilitate the reuse of Brownfields
2) Working closely with the Department of the Interior in their coordination of the Brownfields
Program to examine various strategies that would allow BLM to participate more fully in the
Brownfields Program
Headquarters Contact
Robert Renton Washington, DC 20240
Deputy Assistant (202) 501-6723
Director for Human Resource Management (202) 501-6718 Fax
1849 C Street, NW - Room 5070 Email: bob renton@blm.gov
Mailstop 3023
37
-------
Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Web Site: http://www.nps.gov
The National Park Service (NFS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior has a varied and
experienced staff of rangers, natural resource managers, archeologists, historians, interpreters,
landscape architects, engineers and planners responsible for protecting more than 83 million
acres of national parks, monuments and reservations. NFS personnel promote and regulate the
use of federal property, conduct research and educate the public, and are available to outside
clients whose projects dovetail with those of the agency.
NFS created the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program to provide
assistance directly to communities, counties, states, regions and nonprofit groups to protect the
rivers and streams in their own backyards—and to build hiking and biking trails. The program
brings national perspective, capabilities, and experience to conservation and recreation projects
driven by local initiatives. NPS's Federal Lands-to-Parks Program enables states and local
governments to establish park and recreation areas and adapt historic buildings for public uses.
Through this program, state and local agencies may acquire land and facilities once used for
federal purposes at no cost to meet park and recreation needs. NFS also created the Urban Park
and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program, in 1978, to provide matching grants and technical
assistance to economically distressed urban communities to revitalize their recreation systems
and facilities. The program has provided matching grants directly to local governments for
rehabilitation of deteriorated recreation facilities in distressed urban areas. While no funding was
appropriated for the UPARR program in fiscal years!985-1990 and 1995-1999, from 1979 to
2002, UPARR has awarded approximately $272 million for 1,461 grants to 380 local
jurisdictions in 40 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
Technical Assistance Through the RTCA fragrant
The RTCA Program is an outreach program of NFS providing services throughout the nation.
RTCA can help communities develop creative approaches to river conservation or trail
management—or to develop fund-raising strategies, broaden the local support base or enhance
public awareness.
River, Trail and Greenway Planning
RTCA can lend expertise in ecology, consensus building, landscape architecture and recreation
development. The program helps communities harness public involvement to identify resources,
38
-------
understand the issues, set goals and choose among alternatives. RTCA also helps projects find
ways to attract the financial support that leads to tangible results.
Regional Assessments
RTCA helps states or large metropolitan regions inventory and evaluate their significant river
and trail corridors. Each assessment is tailored to specific regional needs and conditions.
Conservation Workshops and Consultations
RTCA provides training, advice and information on river and trail conservation techniques.
RTCA can put communities in touch with professionals and citizen groups that specialize in
recreation, trail design, landowner liability, public involvement, and the economic benefits of
land conservation.
Technical Assistance Through the Federal Lands-to-Parks Program
NFS assists states and local governments in acquiring, at no cost, surplus federal lands (including
excess lands from decommissioned military bases). NFS helps identify which lands have high
natural, historic or recreational values, and then provides technical assistance to communities to
work through the process of gaining title to the lands. Land or buildings obtained through this
program must be open to the public and used exclusively for parks and recreation purposes. NFS
can provide support in:
• Identifying historically and naturally significant surplus federal properties
• Notifying communities of upcoming opportunities
• Assisting in preparing applications
• Acting as the liaison with other federal agencies, including the Department of Defense and
General Services Administration
• Assisting in planning the reuse of military bases that are closing for park and recreation and open
space purposes
• Ensuring the long-term preservation of properties transferred under the program
Funding and Technical Assistance Provided Through the UPARR Program
Although funding has not been appropriated for this year, in the past, three types of matching
grants have been available through the UPARR program for the rehabilitation of critically
needed recreation facilities in urban areas:
• Rehabilitation grants have been available for renovating or redesigning existing close-to-home
recreation facilities,
39
-------
• Innovation grants have supported specific activities that either increase recreation programs or
improve the efficiency of the local government to operate existing programs, and
• Planning grants have provided funds for the development of a Recovery Action Program Plan
approved by NPS.
How To Access Partner Resources
Information and advice on many conservation and recreation topics is available from any
National Park Service office. However, for a group to formally receive longer-term assistance, it
must formally apply for it (see contacts below).
The RTCA program works on projects, by request, through a letter from the lead partner on the
project. Project partners may be non-profit organizations, community groups, and local, state or
federal government agencies. The letter should provide a brief overview of the project including:
the project's location and background; special resources of the project area; project goals; a list
of the partners and how they will participate; how the project will involve the public; and
specifically indicate what the partners would like NPS to do. NPS selects projects on a
competitive basis annually, and requests that the project partners play a major role in carrying
out the project. Partners sponsoring a project must help fund it, with either cash or in-kind
services. NPS encourages project partners to contact the agency before preparing an application
for advice and suggestions.
Only State or local units of government are eligible to apply for surplus real property for public
park and recreation purposes. Applicants must agree to manage the property in the public
interest and for public park and recreation use.
Regional Contacts
Edwolyn Dooley-Higgins
Chief, Recreation Programs Branch
Southeast Region
National Park Service
UPARR Program/LWCF Program/Challenge Cost Share Program
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
100 Alabama Street
1924 Building, Suite 5R 80
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404)562-3175
Fax 404-562-3246
E-mail: edwolyn dooley-higgins@nps.gov
40
-------
RTCA Program
Chris Abbett
National Park Service
RTCA Program
Sam Nunn AFC
100 Alabama Street
1924 Building, Suite 5R 80
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404)562-3175x522
fax 404-562-3282
Federal Lands-to-Parks Program
Bill Huie
National Park Service
Federal Lands-to-Park Program
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
100 Alabama Street
1924 Building, Suite 5R 80
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404)562-3175x511
Fax: 404-562-3246
Headquarters Contacts
Tom Ross, Assistant Director
Recreation and Conservation Mailing Address
(202) 354-6904 Department of the Interior
Fax: (202) 371-5179 National Park Service
torn ross@nps.gov 1849 C Street, NW
Mailstop 3622
Sam Stokes, Program Leader Washington, DC 2024
Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance
(202)354-6933
Fax:(202)371-5179
sam stokes@nps.gov
41
-------
Department of the Interior
Office of Surface Mining
Web Site: http://www.osmre.gov
Protecting the environment during coal mining and making sure the land is reclaimed afterward
have been national requirements since 1977 when America's Surface Mining Law was signed by
then President Carter. The Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining (OSM) is responsible
for making sure that those requirements are met.
The OSM is a small bureau with responsibility, in cooperation with the states and Indian Tribes,
for the protection of citizens and the environment during coal mining and reclamation, and to
reclaim mines abandoned before 1977. The Office of Surface Mining is organized around two
principal requirements: regulating active coal mining and reclaiming abandoned mines.
Additionally, OSM operates programs to: eliminate the environmental and economic impacts of
acid mine drainage from abandoned coal mines; encourage reforestation of reclaimed mine land;
develop techniques that can ensure reclamation of prime farmland soils; and publicly recognize
outstanding reclamation by communicating the experience to others.
Resources Available for Community Development
OSM recently signed a cooperative agreement with EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER). OSM has participated in the Brownfields Initiative by providing training
and support to OSM/VISTA volunteers and authoring grant applications for Brownfields pilots
in coal impacted watersheds. The new Brownfields bill recognizes mine-scarred lands as
brownfields, further linking and strengthening the environmental management activities and
goals of OSM, EPA, and the other Federal partners.
DOI (OSM) commits to:
1) Working with EPA and other federal partners to address environmental concerns on abandoned
minelands and within contaminated watersheds
2) Continuing to provide technical support to the Brownfields initiatives in Coal Creek, TN,
Kelley's Creek, WV, and interested new applicants
3) Continuing to work with OSM/VISTA Watershed Development Coordinators to provide direct
training on Brownfields in Coalfields grant writing and project development
4) Continuing to provide administrative support Cooperative Agreements to first-year OSM/VISTA
positions. OSM and VISTA are committed to expansion of the OSM/VISTA Watershed
Development Coordinator positions to new states in 2003
42
-------
5) Participating in regional training with NALGEP and other agencies in coal country, bringing
interested watershed VISTA's and other staff to the conferences whenever feasible
Headquarters Contact
T. Allan Comp
Watershed Assistance Team
Office of Surface Mining
Department of the Interior
Room 121
Washington, DC 20240
(202) 208-2836
(202) 219-023 9 Fax
Email: tcomp@osmre.gov
43
-------
Department of Justice
Web Site: http://www.usdoj.gov
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was established in 1870. Today, its diverse
responsibilities include a focus on legal issues, drug enforcement, prison operations, and justice
programs. DOJ's Office of Justice Programs (OJP) assists State and local governments with law
enforcement and community policing. Within OJP, the Office of Weed and Seed (OWS)
oversees the DOJ Weed and Seed program.
Operation Weed and Seed is a strategy that "weeds out" violent crime, gang activity, drug use,
and drug trafficking in targeted neighborhoods and then "seeds" the target area by restoring those
neighborhoods through social and economic revitalization. The Weed and Seed strategy
recognizes the importance of linking Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts with social
services, the private sector, and community efforts to maximize the impact of existing programs
and resources. Four elements make up the Weed and Seed program: law enforcement;
community policing; prevention, intervention, and treatment; and neighborhood restoration.
Law enforcement activities constitute the "weed" portion of the program. Revitalization, which
includes prevention, intervention and treatment services, and neighborhood restoration,
constitutes the "seed" element. Community policing is the "bridge" that links the Weed and
Seed elements.
Resources Available for Community Development
DOJ incorporates its Weed and Seed program into various Brownfields Pilots by offering up to
$50,000 in flexible funding for use in Brownfields activities at the discretion of sites. This
funding falls within the normal continuation site-funding amount described above.
DOJ commits to:
1. Continuing to represent the interests of all federal partners in litigation
2. Advising federal partners on legislative implementation
3. Consider revising the Office of Weed & Seed's Official Recognition and/or grant applications to
more strongly encourage Brownfields redevelopment (OWS)
4. Using settlements and assets to assist with Brownfields redevelopment
5. Continuing to work with the federal partners on the Weed & Seed program and assisting with the
use of Brownfields funds to clean up methamphetamine labs (OWS)
44
-------
6. Distributing information and providing guidance to U.S. Attorney's offices and to other partners
on the EPA Brownfields Program through web site linkages, a Federal Resource Guide, and other
appropriate venues (OWS)
Headquarters Contact
Bob Samuels, Acting Director
Office of Weed & Seed
810 7th Street, NW - 6th Floor
Washington, DC 205 31
(202)616-1152
Fax:(202)616-1159
Email: samuels@ojp.usdoj .gov
Mary Breen
Special Assistant
Office of Weed & Seed
810 7th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20531
(202)616-1152
Fax:(202)616-1159
Email: breen@ojp.usdoi.gov
45
-------
Department of Justice
Community Relations Service
Web Site: http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/crs.htm
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is the largest law firm in the Nation, and serves as counsel for
its citizens by representing them in enforcing the law in the public interest. DOJ plays a
significant role in protecting citizens through its efforts for effective law enforcement, crime
prevention, crime detection, prosecution and rehabilitation of offenders.
The Community Relations Service (CRS) is a division of DOJ. CRS is responsible for managing
racial conflict in the community by offering mediation and conciliation services under the
authority of Title X of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It is the only federal agency dedicated to
assisting state and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community
groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders,
and in restoring racial stability and harmony. CRS facilitates the development of viable, mutual
understandings and agreements as alternatives to coercion, violence or litigation. CRS also
assists communities in developing local mechanisms, conducting training and other proactive
measures to prevent or reduce racial and ethnic tension.
CRS is available to state and local officials to help resolve and prevent racial and ethnic conflict,
violence and civil disorders by helping local officials and residents tailor locally defined
resolutions. CRS conciliators assist in identifying the sources of violence and conflict and
utilizing specialized crisis management and violence reduction techniques that work best for
each community. CRS has no law enforcement authority and does not impose solutions,
investigate or prosecute cases, or assign blame or fault. CRS conciliators are required by law to
conduct their activities in confidence, without publicity, and are prohibited from disclosing
confidential information.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
Conflict Resolution Services
CRS can provide staff hours and technical assistance to prevent disputes that threaten to disrupt
community development initiatives.
Training
CRS will provide training in the various skills community leaders and members need when
dealing with minority communities and allegations of discrimination.
46
-------
Data Gathering
CRS will conduct confidential assessments of community response to agency projects and
assessments of the political implications and potential for conflict in order to facilitate decision-
making and provide the basis for CRS recommendations.
How to Access Partner Resources
Community Relations Service resources can be accessed through in-kind services. Please contact
the person listed below for additional information regarding available community redevelopment
resources.
Regional Contact
Thomas L. Battles, Regional Director
Community Relations Service
U.S. Department of Justice
75 Piedmont Avenue, Suite 900
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone:(404)331-6883
Fax:(404)3314471
Email: thomas.battles@usdoj .gov
47
-------
Department of Labor
Web Site: http://www.doleta.gov
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) was created by Congress in 1913 to foster, promote, and
develop the welfare of working people; to improve their working conditions; and to enhance
their opportunities for profitable employment. Initially, DOL consisted of four bureaus
transferred from the old Department of Commerce and Labor: the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Bureau of Immigration, Bureau of Naturalization, and Children's Bureau. A conciliation service
was added to mediate labor disputes. Over time, the Department's role and size changed
according to the needs of workers in the ever-changing economy.
The Department is actively promoting the Brownfields initiative through its employment
programs. As a part of this effort, DOL is working through stakeholders of the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) to promote participation in the Brownfields Initiative. The WIA provides
job-training services for adults and youth, dislocated workers, and others who face significant
employment barriers. The Act seeks to move jobless individuals into permanent, self-sustaining
employment. There are currently 608 LWIA designees nationwide. The WIA has appropriated
$3.4 billion in annual funding, although none of that money is specifically earmarked for
Brownfields projects.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
DOL's role in the Brownfields partnership falls within the Department's existing mission: to
provide job training and permanent job placement. DOL's basic job and life skills training
serves as a necessary complement to other, more environmentally focused training programs
designed to help assess and cleanup Brownfields. Together these programs ensure that the
community residents most impacted by Brownfields will directly benefit from their
redevelopment.
DOL commits to:
1. Awarding $ 11 billion in grants to be used for workforce development, which DOL would like to
link to Brownfields
2. Establishing links to EPA Brownfields websites on DOL websites
3. Leveraging funds for training grants that may be used in Brownfields communities
4. Distributing training guidance to work force investment boards
5. Signing an MOU with EPA to continue and foster interagency cooperation
48
-------
6. Working with the Office of Apprenticeship to develop competency standards certificates that will
ensure adequate training standards are followed.
Regional Contacts
Helen N. Parker
Regional Administrator
U. S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
61 Forsyth Street, SW., SNAFC 6M-12
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
(404) 562-2092
(404) 562-2149 Fax
Teresa Flores
Executive Assistant
(404) 562-2092
(404) 562-2149 Fax
Email: tflores@doleta.gov
49
-------
Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Web Site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is part of the Department of Transportation and is
headquartered in Washington, D.C., with field offices across the country. The agency's mission
is to create a model transportation system for the American people through proactive leadership,
innovation, and excellence in service. This mission is advanced through the following programs:
• The Federal Aid Highway Program - provides federal financial assistance to the States to
construct and improve the National Highway System, urban and rural roads, and bridges. The
program provides funds for general improvements and development of safe highways and roads.
• The Federal Lands Highway Program - provides access to and within national forests, national
parks, Indian reservations and other public lands by preparing plans, letting contracts, supervising
construction facilities, and conducting bridge inspections and surveys.
FHWA conducts and manages a comprehensive research development, and technology program
to support all of these program areas.
Most highway programs are funded by the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), for which motor fuel
taxes are the major source of income. Currently, a continuing resolution provides temporary
funding for both FHWA programs and administrative expenses. The Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which authorized FHWA expenditures from HTF for appropriate
programs, ended in September 2003. The federal-aid highway program is an umbrella term
generally referring to all activities funded through FHWA and administered by the state, local
highway or transportation agencies. Typical projects include new roads, road widening and
reconstruction; transportation centers; intermodal facilities and recreational trails; access
improvements; bridge rehabilitation or replacement; and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
Transportation Planning
FHWA transportation planning includes support for metropolitan planning organizations to help
them develop long-range transportation plans, including inventories of routes, types and volume
of vehicles using routes, predicting future population, employment and economic growth to meet
future traffic demands.
50
-------
Transportation Enhancement
Transportation enhancement support includes funding to support provision of facilities for
pedestrians and bicycles, historic rehabilitation and preservation, landscaping, archaeological
planning and research, control and removal of outdoor advertising, acquisition of scenic
easements and sites, and mitigation of water pollution from highway runoff.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
Through CMAQ, FHWA provides funding for eligible transportation projects under certain
criteria stipulated in TEA-21, with preference to programs that have documented emission
reductions in an approved State Implementation Plan as a transportation control measure.
Welfare to Work Programs
• Access to Jobs - The purpose of this program is to provide transportation services for welfare
recipients to and from jobs and to develop transportation for residents of urban centers and rural
suburban areas to suburban employment opportunities. Emphasis is placed on projects that use
mass transportation services.
• Training - The Act allows States the opportunity to reserve slots for welfare recipients in an On-
the Job-Training program that leads to full journey level in skilled highway construction trades.
Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot
The Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot program is a comprehensive
initiative of research and grants to investigate the relationship between transportation and
community and system preservation and private sector-based initiatives. States, local
governments, and metropolitan planning organizations are eligible for discretionary grants to
plan and implement strategies which improve the efficiency of the transportation system; reduce
environmental impacts of transportation; reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure
investments; ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade; and examine private
sector development patterns and investments to support these goals. A total of $120 million is
authorized for this program for FYs 1999-2003.
Regional Contact
Region 4
Georgia Division
Max Azizi
Intermodal Planning Manager
(404) 562-3650
(404) 562-3703 Fax
max.azizi@fhwa.dot.gov
51
-------
Headquarters Contacts
Fred Bank, Team Leader
Water and Ecosystems Team
(202) 366-5004
Fax (202) 366-3409
fred.bank(gi£hwa. dot.gov
Constance M. Hill
Environmental Protection Specialist
(804) 775-3378
Fax (804) 775-3356
connie.hill(gifhwa.dot.gov
Mailing Address:
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Natural Environment
HEPN - 30
400 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590
52
-------
Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
Web Site: http://www.fra.dot.gov
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation was
created in 1966 to ensure, promote and enforce safety throughout America's railroad system. The
FRA implements railroad safety laws by developing regulations and applying them to the
railroads. FRA safety personnel in eight regions across the U.S. monitor America's vast railroad
network. FRA's Office of Safety performs a wide variety of functions to help ensure railroad
safely. The headquarters and field staff enforce safety regulations and statutes through routine
inspections, assessments, investigation and analysis of accidents, management of state
involvement in rail safety programs and implementation of highway-grade crossing safety
programs.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
Transportation Planning
FRA transportation planning recognizes the major role the railroads play in the freight
transportation system as well as their contributions to commuter and inter-city passenger service.
Planning encourages innovative projects such as high-speed rail and magnetic levitation. The
most important contribution is the requirement that rail alternatives be considered in the state and
local planning process. FRA is working with other elements of the Department of
Transportation, the private sector, and state and local governments to ensure rail transportation is
fully considered.
National Inspection Plan
The FRA inspection plan is a method to allocate FRA's limited inspector resources by analyzing
railroad accident and operating statistics and past inspection results in order to prioritize future
inspections. Inspection time is allotted to specific railroad inspection points based on the safety
risk each poses. Safety managers ensure that inspectors are geographically distributed to where
they are most needed.
Federal Railroad Safety Act
The FRA must generally provide the public notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, a
proposed rule. Additionally, the FRA basic statute, the Federal Railroad Safety Act, generally
requires public hearings prior to issuance of a rule. These regulations cover tracks, locomotives,
train cars braking systems, operating practices, locomotive engineer certification, control of
alcohol and drug use, and regulation of transportation of hazardous materials via rail.
53
-------
Highway Rail Crossings
The FRA promotes education and enforcement of crossing safety, primarily through Operation
Lifesaver, a private organization in 49 states. The FRA also promotes engineering improvements
to crossings and sponsors research to improve warning devices and visibility at crossings.
Regional Contact
Fred Dennin
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth St.
Suite 16T20
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-562-3800
Fax 404-562-3830
54
-------
Department of Transportation
Federal Transit Administration
Web Site: http://www.fta.dot.gov
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) carries out the Federal mandate to improve public
mass transportation. As one of nine operating administrations or agencies within the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), FTA is the principal source of financial assistance to
America's communities for the planning, development and improvement of public transportation
systems. Through FTA, the Federal government provides financial and technical assistance and
training to local transit systems, states and planning organizations.
The Federal mass transit assistance program is among the most successful domestic assistance
programs that the Federal government has ever sponsored. Federal highway and transit
programs authorized under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of
1991 were reauthorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21)
signed by the President on June 9, 1998.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
DOT funds are directed to transportation purposes and do not explicitly target Brownfields or
community redevelopment. DOT policy encourages state and local transportation agencies to
address community Brownfields redevelopment in transportation planning and during project
development.
FTA allocates transit funds primarily by formula, with a limited amount of discretionary funding.
Following is a summary of FTA-funded transit programs and FTA programmatic activities and
initiatives that focus on transit-community linkages.
Formula Grant Programs (matching ratio: 80% maximum federal share/minimum 20% local
share)
Urbanized Area Formula Grants
Section 5307 of Title 49 of the United States Code provides capital and operating assistance to
transit agencies in urban (50,000 or more in population) areas. This basic transit program is
appropriated by statutory formula.
Non-Urbanized Area Formula Grants
Section 5311 provides capital and operating assistance through the states to transit operators in
non-urban (less than 50,000 in population) areas. Under Section 5311, a state must use a
55
-------
percentage (15%) of the funds it receives for inter-city bus service unless the state can certify
that its inter-city bus needs have been met.
Formula Grants for the Elderly & Persons with Disabilities
Section 5310 provides capital assistance, through the states, to organizations that provide
specialized transportation services to elderly persons and persons with disabilities. The funds
may go to a non-profit organization and, under certain circumstances, to public bodies.
Discretionary Investment Grants (matching ratio: 80% maximum Federal share/20% minimum
local share)
This program (Section 5309) provides discretionary capital assistance for construction of new
fixed guide way systems, extensions to fixed guide way systems, buses and bus-related facilities.
Surface Transportation Program
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds may be used either for highway or transit at the
discretion of the state and local officials. TEA 21 also permits certain highway funds to be used
for transit projects that reduce congestion and improve air quality.
Transportation Planning and Research Program
Metropolitan Planning Funds (Section 5303) are apportioned to each state on the basis of urban
area population. The states pass the funds through to the 339 Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) in urban areas with populations of over 50,000 to support the
metropolitan planning and programming process. The planning process encompasses studies of
transportation needs and demands, land use, economic, employment and demographic trends,
and the cost effectiveness of alternative services and facilities. To be eligible for Federal
funding, a transportation project must be part of the regional Transportation Long Range Plan
and included in the region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Rural Transit Assistance Program
The Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP) promotes delivery of safe and effective public
and private transportation in non-urban areas by providing training and technical assistance to
agencies in the areas and develops national rural transportation training resources to aid in
information dissemination. This program, administered through the states, increases emphasis on
private sector involvement and on safety initiatives in rural transit.
State Planning and Research Program
The State Planning and Research Program (Section 5313) is a formula-allocated program that
supports state-initiated technical activities associated with urban, suburban and rural public
transportation assistance, including planning, research, technical assistance and training, and the
development of a statewide transportation plan and state TIP.
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program
The Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC), established under TEA 21, provides
funding for the provision of transportation services to increase access to jobs and employment
related activities. TEA 21 established grant assistance for new and supplementary transportation
56
-------
for welfare recipients and other economically disadvantaged persons in urban, suburban and
rural areas. The program will support access to jobs and employment-support activities
including childcare, schools and medical facilities.
Joint Development
TEA 21 authorizes Joint Development activities. Transit agencies may lease to other parties land
and air rights at stations and may also sell portions of transit property and retain the proceeds.
Under certain circumstances transit agencies may use Federal funds to participate in construction
elements of private and public development. Joint Development must be physically and
functionally related to transit use and beneficial to the transit system. Joint Development
activities are authorized under all FTA capital programs. (Sections 5307 and 5309)
FTA Transit-Community Initiatives
FTA encourages locally directed land use policies and urban design that strengthen the link
between transit and communities. Under the Transit-Oriented Development and Livable
Communities Initiatives, FTA encourages local jurisdictions, when using their allocated transit
funds, to emphasize pedestrian access, safety, community service facilities, and aesthetics in
engineering and design of stations and immediately surrounding areas.
How to Access Partner Resources
FTA makes grants to public entities for activities meeting the eligibility requirements of the
programs set forth in the law.
Activities proposed for FTA funding in urban areas of over 50,000 in population must be
contained in a local Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and/or TIP. Capital projects must
also be included in the regional Transportation Long Range Plan. The MPO Board approves
these documents, which are cooperatively developed by the state, local agencies and
jurisdictions, public transit operators and the MPO staff. Any supporting discussion and
documentation of a proposed activity should clearly delineate transportation features and
purpose(s). Once approved at the local level, planning activities from the UPWP are funded
through a planning grant made to the state with funds passed through to the respective MPOs.
The TIP is then incorporated into a State TIP (STIP), which must be approved by FTA and
FHWA before agencies may apply for Federal funds for specific projects.
In rural areas, FTA programs are administered through the state. The state Department of
Transportation would be the first point of contact for information about developing and
forwarding a proposal for transit-related funding.
57
-------
Regional Contact
Elizabeth Martin
Federal Transit Administration
61 Forsyth St. SW
Suite 17T50
Atlanta GA 30303-8917
(404) 562-3509
(404) 562-3505 Fax
58
-------
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Web Site: http://www.fdic.gov
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's mission is to maintain the stability of and public
confidence in the nation's financial system. To achieve this goal, the FDIC was created in 1933
to insure deposits and promote safe and sound banking practices. The FDIC, in conjunction with
other federal and state regulatory agencies, examines financial institutions to ensure they are
conducting business in compliance with consumer protection rules and in a way that minimizes
risk to their customers and to the deposit insurance funds. The FDIC promotes compliance with
fair lending, Community Reinvestment Act, and other consumer protection laws and regulations.
It also works with lenders, organizations and the general public to revitalize and educate
communities.
Resources Available for Community Development
FDIC encourages EPA to share its Money Smart financial curriculum with community members
impacted by the revitalization efforts at Brownfields sites across the country. The Money Smart
curriculum helps individuals build financial knowledge, develop financial confidence and is
therefore well suited to the needs of many of the Brownfields communities. Low and moderate
income community members will be better prepared to fully participate in the job training and
job creation efforts made possible by the Brownfields initiatives. There is a natural synergy to
the two programs working together to help communities and community members survive.
FDIC commits to:
1) Partnering with the Environmental Protection Agency on financial education. Specifically, FDIC
will make its Money Smart curriculum widely available to community members served by the
Brownfields initiative. Money Smart is a training program designed to help adults outside the
financial mainstream enhance their money skills and create positive banking relationships.
Financial education fosters financial stability for individuals and for entire communities. The
more people know about credit and banking services, the more likely they are to increase savings,
buy homes, and improve their financial health and well-being.
2) Sharing information about EPA programs (e.g. Brownfields, USTfields) with its State non-
member financial institution population. Insured financial institutions making loans to finance
environmental cleanup, redevelopment or revitalization of properties in low or moderate income
communities receive positive consideration for those loans in their Community Reinvestment Act
performance evaluations.
59
-------
Regional Contacts
AL, FL, GA, NC, SC, WV, VA
James Pilkington
Community Affairs Officer
Div. of Supervision & Consumer Protection
FDIC
10 Tenth Street, NE - Suite 800
Atlanta, GA 30309-3849
(678) 916-2246
(678) 916-2453 Fax
KY, MS, TN
Clinton Vaughn
Community Affairs Officer
Div. of Supervision & Consumer Protection
FDIC
5100 Poplar Avenue - Suite 1900
Memphis, TN 38137
(901)818-5706
(901) 821-5272 Fax
Headquarters Contacts
Elaine D. Drapeau
Community Affairs Specialist
FDIC
550 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20429
(202)898-6652
(202) 898-6566 Fax
Email: edrapeau@fdic.gov
Michael Hein
Environmental Specialist
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
550 17th Street, N.W.
Room F-3020
Washington, DC 20429
(202)898-6656
Fax (202) 898-8912
60
-------
Federal Housing Finance Board
Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta
Web Site: http://www.fhfb.gov
The Federal Housing Finance Board (Board) regulates the Federal Home Loan Bank System
(System), which consists of 12 member Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks). The System is a
government-sponsored enterprise with the specific mandate of promoting housing and
community investment finance. The Board has the statutory responsibility of ensuring that the
member Banks carry out their housing and community investment finance mission. The 12
Banks have combined assets at year-end 2001 of approximately $673 billion. Via the System, the
Banks provide long-term, fixed-rate flexible financing to more than 7,900 member financial
institutions (members) around the country. The System, therefore, is well positioned to assist
communities in advancing local Brownfields development because its members and customers
are the local financial institutions that will be most disposed to respond to such projects.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
Advances
Advances are secured loans from the Banks to their members, and are the Banks' primary credit
tools. The Banks offer members regular and discounted advance products. By law, each Bank is
required to establish a program to provide discounted advances for targeted, community-oriented
lending through its Community Investment Program (CIP). The Banks are also considering
working with certain qualified members to provide regular, non-discounted advances for
construction or other short-term loans for commercial development related to Brownfields in
these designated communities.
The Affordable Housing Program (AHP)
For 2001, the System made 227.8 million available as subsidies for low-and moderate-income
housing through AHP. Each Bank must contribute 10 percent of its annual net earnings to its
AHP. The AHP may provide Brownfields housing developments with additional points in the
competitive process for grants if the community can make a case that the development promotes
"community stability."
Support for Local Financing
Support for Local Financing comes via the Banks' purchasing qualified taxable bonds. The
proceeds of these bonds could be used for Brownfields development in the selected communities.
The Banks could also offer advances to members to buy tax-exempt bonds that are issued to fund
eligible costs involved in Brownfields development.
61
-------
Marketing
The Banks could develop marketing programs to encourage members to increase their
Brownfields lending, particularly in Showcase communities. The Banks could inform their
members of ways to access Federal Home Loan Bank resources to assist in Brownfields
development through member workshops and meetings, the Banks' various newsletters and other
publications, and in presentations to trade associations and other meetings.
How to Access Partner Resources
The System resources may be accessed through the member banks. Please contact the
appropriate person listed below for additional information regarding available resources.
Regional Contacts
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina
Lynn Brazen
Vice President
Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta
P.O. Box 105565
Atlanta, GA 30348
(404)888-8177
Kentucky and Tennessee
Carol M. Peterson
Senior Vice President
Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati
P.O. Box 598
Cincinnati, OH 45201-0598
(513)852-7615
Fax 513-852-7647
Mississippi
Criss Murdoch
Senior Vice President
Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas
P.O. Box 619026
Dallas/Fort Worth, TX 75261-9026
(214)441-8636
62
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Web Site: http://www.epa.gov
The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to protect human health and
to safeguard the natural environment - air, water, and land - upon which life depends. EPA is
responsible for the implementation of federal environmental programs, including air and water
pollution control; toxic substance, pesticide and drinking water regulations; wetlands protection;
hazardous waste management; hazardous waste site cleanup; and some aspects of radioactive
materials regulation.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
The Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Program
The "Small Business Liability and Brownfields Revitalization Act" was signed into law on
January 11, 2002. With certain legal exclusions and additions, the term "brownfield site" means
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. Title II of the
Act, The Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Program, provides grant
funding to support site characterizations and assessments, planning related to brownfields sites,
and site remediation.
Eligible Recipients
States or state-created government entities, municipalities, local government units, Indian tribes,
and non-profit organizations.
Proposal Process/Funding Cycle
A competitive process with threshold and ranking criteria; the Federal Register notice issued in
the Fall includes published deadlines. Proposals are evaluated and ranked by evaluation panels.
The panels evaluate responses to threshold criteria on a pass/fail basis, and ranking criteria on a
numerical scoring basis. Scores on each ranking criterion are totaled to determine proposal
rankings. Final selections are made by EPA senior management. The funds are awarded as a
cooperative agreement. In general, grants up to $200,000 are awarded to eligible entities on a
community-wide or site-by-site basis for site characterizations and remediations. Grants for the
capitalization of revolving loan funds may not exceed $1,000,000 per eligible entity.
Brownfields Assessment Funding
Assessment grants can be used to inventory brownfields, conduct environmental site or
community-wide assessments, prepare cleanup and reuse plans, and carry out community and
stakeholder outreach. Emphasis is on removing excessive regulatory barriers and facilitating
63
-------
coordinated public and private sector cleanup and redevelopment efforts at the federal, state and
local levels.
Funding Cycle
Up to $200,000 over a two-year period; application deadline is in the Fall.
Eligible Recipients
States, cities, towns, counties, U.S. territories, and Indian tribes. Includes:
• General Purpose Units of local governments
• Land Clearance Authority or other quasi-governmental entities
• Regional Councils
• Redevelopment agencies that are chartered or otherwise sanctioned by a State
• Nonprofit organizations
• Alaska Native Regional Corporation, Alaska Native Village Corporation, and Metlakatla
Indian Community
Brownfields Job Training and Development
Funds may be used to train community residents, impacted by Brownfields, in procedures for the
handling and removal of hazardous substances (includes training for jobs in sampling, analysis
and site remediation). Grantees monitor the progress of trainees for at least one year as they seek
employment in the environmental field.
Funding Cycle
Cooperative agreements are awarded on a competitive basis up to $200,000 over a two-year
period.
Eligible Recipients
Colleges, universities, non-profit training centers exempt from taxation under 26 USC 501(c)(3),
community job training organizations, states, cities, towns, counties, U.S. territories, and
federally recognized Indian tribes.
Brownfields Cleanup and Revolving Loan Fund Programs
Revolving Loan Fund grants provide funding for a grant recipient to capitalize a revolving loan
fund and to provide subgrants to carry out cleanup activities at brownfield sites. An RLF award
requires a 20 percent cost share, which may be in the form of a contribution of money, labor,
material, or service.
Funding Cycle
Up to $1.0 million per eligible entity, including coalitions; application deadline is in the Fall.
Eligible Recipients
States, cities, towns, counties, U.S. territories, and Indian tribes (same as Assessment above)
64
-------
Brownfields Cleanup Programs
Cleanup grants are used to fund individual properties. Grantees must own properties at the time
of the award and must contribute a 20 percent matching share in the form of money, labor,
materials, or services that would be eligible and allowable costs under the grant.
Funding cycle
Up to $200,000 per eligible entity (maximum up to 5 entities); application deadline is in the Fall.
Eligible Recipients
States and Tribes, local governments, state-chartered redevelopment agencies, and nonprofit
organizations (see Assessment above).
Targeted Brownfield Assessments
The purpose of the Targeted Brownfields Assessment program is to assess possible
contamination at Brownfield sites. An EPA contractor or State conducts the assessments with
EPA oversight. Priority is given to eligible entities that do not currently have an EPA grant. No
grant award is made. These may be conducted by EPA or a State.
Additional Information
For more information about the Brownfields Program and specific application requirements
contact: Region 4 Brownfields Program at (404) 562-8661 or the EPA Brownfields Website -
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields.
Other EPA Grants
Superfund Technical Assistance Grants
Superfund Technical Assistance Grants enable groups affected by a Superfund National
Priorities List (NPL) site to obtain technical assistance in interpreting information regarding the
site.
Funding Cycle
Up to $50,000 any time after the site is proposed for NPL listing; additional funds may be
available for complex sites.
Eligible Recipients
Any incorporated nonprofit organization representing groups affected by a Superfund NPL site
or a site proposed for NPL listing.
Environmental Education
Environmental Education grants provide financial support for projects that design, demonstrate
or disseminate environmental education practices, methods or techniques.
65
-------
Funding Cycle
Up to $25,000; application deadline is November 15.
Eligible Recipients
Local, tribal, or state agencies; colleges and universities; nonprofit organizations and non-
commercial educational broadcasting agencies; state environmental agencies.
Environmental Justice Grants
Environmental Justice grants provide assistance to eligible community groups and federally
recognized tribal governments who are working on or plan to carry out projects that address
environmental justice issues.
Funding Cycle
Up to $20,000; usually applications are due in March and recipients are selected in the summer.
Eligible Recipients
Any affected community group, nonprofit organization, university, or tribal government.
Organizations must be incorporated.
Funding Cycle
Currently not funded; may be funded again at some future date.
Eligible Recipients
Any incorporated organization that does not intend to become profit-making; any federally
recognized tribal organization, state, city, county or local government.
State and Tribal Environmental Justice Grants (STEJ)
STEJ grants provide financial assistance to state and tribal environmental departments working
to address environmental justice issues and to comply with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Emphasis is on meaningful, fully interactive two-way cooperation between states, tribes and
grassroots community organizations seeking to solve environmental problems
Funding Cycle
Historically up to $100,000 each; 5 nationwide. (Currently not funded)
Eligible Recipients
States or tribes. (EPA encourages the involvement of community-based grassroots
organizations.)
Water Quality Cooperative Agreements
Grants provide financial assistance for restoring impaired waters in priority watersheds.
Funding Cycle
$50,000 to $150,000 per project anticipated; application deadline is undetermined.
66
-------
Eligible Recipients
States, tribes, public and nonprofit private agencies, institutions and organizations.
Nonpoint Source Grants
Grants provide financial assistance to states and tribes in implementing nonpoint source
management programs. Each state sets its own priorities for funding locally sponsored projects.
Funding Cycle
$4-9 million per state; application due dates vary.
Eligible Recipients
States and tribes are the only entities within EPA Region 4 eligible to receive these grants.
States will use a portion of their annual grant to fund locally sponsored projects that address
nonpoint source pollution.
Pollution Prevention Incentives for States (PPIS)
PPIS provides support for state, regional and tribal programs that address the reduction or
elimination of pollution across all environmental media: air, land and water. Priorities include
multimedia prevention programs; technical assistance to businesses and other outreach activities;
projects that test and support innovative pollution prevention approaches; and coordinated
pollution prevention planning efforts.
Eligible Recipients
State agencies and instrumentalities such as universities, federally recognized tribes, territories
and possessions. States are encouraged to form partnerships with non-profit organizations and
local governments.
Funding Cycle
Up to 120,000 per state; $580,000 regionally.
Solid Waste Management Assistance Grants
This grant program provides limited funds for demonstration projects that promote effective
solid waste management through source reduction, reuse, recycling, and improved landfill
technology. The program is funded through Regional and National Competition Grants. Priority
is given to innovative recycling programs, outreach and training in source reduction and
recycling, and projects that use integrated solid waste management systems to solve municipal
solid waste generation and management problems at local, regional and national levels.
Funding Cycle
Up to 20,000; applications due March/April.
Eligible Recipients
Non-profit entities, state and local governments
67
-------
How to Access Partner Resources
For additional information regarding grant applications and other resources available for
community redevelopment, please contact the appropriate representative listed below.
EPA REGION 4
Waste Management Division
Brownfields Program
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Brownfields Program
Philip Vorsatz, Section Chief
Region 4 Brownfields Coordinator
(404)562-8789
vorsatz.philip@epa.gov
Brownfields Project Managers
Nicole Comick-Bates
MS
(404) 562-9966
bates.nicole@epa.gov
Margaret Crowe
Training and Grants
(404)562-8687
crowe .margaret@epa. gov
Kathleen Curry
Job Training & AL, KY
(404) 562-8660
curry.kathleen@epa.gov
Brian Holtzclaw
SC
(404) 562-8684
holtzclaw.brian@epa.gov
Wanda Jennings
Revolving Loan Fund Coordinator
(404) 562-8682
jennings.wanda@epa.gov
Olga Perry
GA
(404) 562-8534
perry.olga@epa.gov
Camilla Warren
AL
(404)562-8519
warren .camilla@epa. gov
Barbara Schuster
FL
(404) 562-8923
dick.Barbara@epa.gov
Beverly F. Williams
NC, TN
(404) 562-8493
Williams.Beverly@epa.gov
128(a) Coordinator
Rosemary Patton
(404) 562-8866
patton.rosemary@epa.gov
Environmental Justice Grants
Gloria Love
(404) 562-9672
love.gloria@epa.gov
State and Tribal Environmental Justice
Grants
Deborah Carter
(404) 562-9668
carter.deborah@epa.gov
Water Quality Cooperative Agreements
Betty Barton
(404)562-9381
barton.betty@epa.gov
68
-------
Nonpoint Source Grants
Mark Nuhfer
((404) 562-9390
nuhfer .mark@epa. gov
Solid Waste Management Assistance Grants
Pamela Swingle
(404) 562-8482
swingle .pamela@epa.gov
Pollution Prevention Incentives for States
Dan Ahern
(404) 562-9028
ahern.danigiepa.gov
Environmental Education
Alice Chastain
404)562-8314
chastain.alice@epa.gov
69
-------
U.S. General Services Administration
Web Site: http://www.gsa.gov
The General Services Administration (GSA) is one of the three central management
agencies in the Federal government, along with the Office of Personnel Management and
the Office of Management and Budget. The Agency provides managed space, supplies,
services, and solutions to enable Federal employees to accomplish their missions. GSA
consists of three services: Information Technology (IT), Federal Supply Service (FSS),
and Public Buildings Service (PBS). IT oversees telecommuting centers and Federal
childcare centers; and FSS manages the Federal motor vehicle fleet and oversees personal
property issues. PBS serves as a builder, developer, lessor, and manager of Federally
owned and leased properties. As such, PBS provides a full range of real estate services,
including real estate brokerage, property management, construction and repairs, security
services, property disposal, and overall portfolio management. PBS also handles the
Agency's Brownfields projects.
GSA maintains 31 landholding agencies, 1,800 Federally owned buildings, and 4,000
Federally leased buildings. As landlord and holder of real estate for the Federal
government, GSA recognizes the importance of cleanup and reuse of Brownfields
properties as a catalyst for positive change in urban areas.
Property use shapes how people live and work, and can serve to provide jobs and an
income base. Because Federal property is woven into the fabric of the nation's
population centers, GSA believes that its potential should be maximized to provide the
best service to the community. To do so, GSA has committed to review and identify
underutilized Federal properties.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
GSA reviews and identifies underused Federal properties that are potentially available for
Brownfields redevelopment. Brownfields transactions are primarily real estate deals-
GSA has the knowledge and experience to serve as the "honest broker" in these
transactions, bringing the right resources and people to the table to get the deal done.
GSA commits to:
Signing an enhanced Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with EPA to strengthen the existing
relationship by focusing on the real property aspects of Brownfields redevelopment
1. Facilitating a Brownfields workshop for potential Federal property developers to educate
them on the Federal real property disposal process and to assist in their efforts to reuse
Federal Brownfields
70
-------
2. Developing a socioeconomic model to measure both the economic and social impacts of
Federal Brownfields redevelopment, as well as the reuse of Federal real property in
general
3. Developing a "Tool Kit" to help foster the partnerships necessary to successfully "seal
the deal" in a Brownfields transaction
4. Coordinating a campaign to educate states and communities engaged in Brownfields
revitalization about innovative disposal methods such as Early Transfer Authority (ETA)
and the privatization of remediation
5. Offering its Geographic Information System (GIS) capability to federal partners
6. Folding information on Brownfields sites into the nationally available properties listings
Headquarters Contact
John Martin
Director of Program Development and
Outreach Office of Property Disposal
General Services Administration
Public Buildings Service
Office of Property Disposal (PR)
18th and F Streets, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20405
(202)501-4671
Regional Contact
Louis Mancuso
Environmental Engineer
Real Property Disposal Division
401 W. Peachtree Street, 25th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404)331-9451
(404)331-2727 Fax
Email: louis.mancuso@gsa.gov
71
-------
U.S. Small Business Administration
Web Site: http://www.sba.gov
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is an independent Federal Agency,
created by Congress in 1953 to assist, counsel and champion the efforts of America's
small businesses. SBA's mission is to provide prospective, new or established persons in
the small business community with financial, procurement, management and technical
assistance. In addition, special emphasis is made to assist women, minorities, the
handicapped and veterans get into and stay in business. SBA's programs are available to
any business that meets SBA size standards, is a for-profit organization, is located and
operates primarily in the United States.
Resources Available for Community Redevelopment
Loan Guaranty Program
The Loan Guaranty Program helps thousands of small companies get started, expand and
prosper. The goal of the program is to increase the amount of capital available to small
businesses through the commercial banking community and non-bank lending
institutions.
Minority Enterprise Development Program
The Minority Enterprise Development Program assists minority small business owners in
developing managerial and marketing skills to succeed and grow, through government
contracting opportunities.
Economic Development Program
The Economic Development Program provides free counseling and low-cost training
resources designed to meet the needs of the existing small business owner as well as the
new small business start-up. These services are tailored to the local community and
available statewide through the Service Corps of Retired Executives, Small Business
Development Centers, and Women Business Centers.
• Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) is an independent, national, non-
profit organization of retired and active businessmen and women who
volunteer their time to provide free business consulting and low-cost training to
small business owners and prospective entrepreneurs.
• Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) is a cooperative effort between the
SBA, the academic community, the private sector, and state and local
governments. SBDC provides management and technical assistance to existing
and prospective small businesses.
• Women's Business Centers (WBC) provides women entrepreneurs with business
training and counseling, technical assistance, and mentoring.
72
-------
For further information about these programs, please access the SBA web pages or
answer desk at 800-827-5722.
SBA/Other Govt. Agency Information (downloadable files) 900-463-4636.
How to access Partner Resources
Loan Guaranty Program
The SBA's 7(a) Loan Guaranty Program is the Agency's primary lending program. It
provides loans to small businesses unable to secure financing on reasonable terms
through normal lending channels. The program operates through private-sector lenders
that provide loans, which are, in turn, guaranteed by the SBA. SBA can guarantee up to
85 percent of loans of $150,000 or less and up to 85 percent of loans above that amount.
The maximum loan amount that SBA can approve is $2 million, although the maximum
portion of that loan SBA can guarantee would be $1 million (or 50 percent of the $2
million).
Economic Development Program
Contact the SBA District Office listed below or web sites at www.score.org or
www.sba.gov/sbdc
or www.sba.gov/womeninbusiness.
Minority Enterprise Development Program
Contact the appropriate SBA District Office listed below.
SBA Region IV District Offices
Alabama
Birmingham, Alabama District Office
(205)290-7101
(205) 290-7404 Fax
Florida
Jacksonville, N Florida District Office
(904) 443-1900
(904) 443-1980 Fax
Miami, S Florida District Office
(305) 536-5521
(305) 536-5058
Georgia
Atlanta, Georgia District Office
(404)331-0100
(404) 331-0101 Fax
Kentucky
Louisville, Kentucky District Office
(502) 582-5971
(502) 582-5009 Fax
Mississippi
Gulfport, Mississippi Branch Office
(228)863-4449
(228) 864-0179
Jackson, Mississippi District Office
(601) 965-4378
(601) 965-4294
North Carolina
Charlotte, North Carolina District Office
(704) 344-6563
(704) 344-6769
73
-------
South Carolina
Columbia, South Carolina District Office
(803)765-5377
(803) 765-5962 Fax
Headquarters Contact
Rachel Newman Karton
Small Business Administration
(202)205-619-1816
Fax: (202) 205-7727
Rachel.newman-karton@sba.gov
Tennessee
Nashville, Tennessee District Office
(615)736-5881
(615) 736-7532
74
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
BROWNFIELDS
FEDERAL
PROGRAMS
GUIDE
-------
Prepared by:
SRA International, Inc.
Northeast Midwest Institute
(Contract No. 68-W-01-048)
2801 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 100
Arlington, VA 22201
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment
Washington, D.C. 20460
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide i September 2004
-------
(This page left intentionally blank.)
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide ii September 2004
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment.
Assessment Grants
Cleanup Grants
Revolving Loan Fund Grants
Clean Water State Revolving Loan Funds
Job Training Grants
Targeted Site Assessments
Environmental Enforcement Education Grant Program
Environmental Justice Small Grants Program
Appalachian Regional Commission 9
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 11
State Urban Forestry Coordinators
Open Space Development and Tree Planting
USDA Urban Resources Partnership
Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Administration 13
Business and Industry Program
Intermediary Re-lending Program
Community Facilities Program
Water and Waste Disposal Program
Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration 15
Public Works and Development Facilities Program
Economic Adjustment Program
Planning Program for Economic Development Districts, Indian Tribes, and Redevelopment
Areas; and Planning Program for States and Urban Areas
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 18
Office of Response and Restoration
Coastal Zone Management Program
Office of Education and Sustainable Development
Coastal Services Center
Portfields
Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers 21
Technical Assistance
Reimbursable Support
Civil Works Funding
Centers of Corps Expertise
Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment 23
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide iii September 2004
-------
Table of Contents - continued
Department of Energy 25
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy/ Center of Excellence for Sustainable
Development
Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs (BTS)
Office of Environmental Management
Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 27
Minority Health Initiative
Review and Assess Environmental Sampling Data
Health-Related Information Sharing
Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Environmental Health Services 29
Basic Research
Hazardous Waste Worker Training
Minority Worker Training Program
Brownfields Minority Worker Training Program
Superfund Worker Training Grants Program
Advanced Technology Training Program
Department of Housing and Urban Development 32
Community Development Block Grant Program
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
Economic Development Initiative (EDI)/ Brownfields EDI (BEDI)
HOME Program
Empowerment Zones (EZ) and Enterprise Communities (EC) Initiative
Lead-based Paint Program
Department of Interior, National Park Service 38
Technical Assistance Through the RTCA Program
Technical Assistance Through the Federal Lands-to-Parks Program
Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining 40
Department of Justice 41
Weed and Seed Program
Department of Labor 43
Job Training and Technical Assistance
Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration 44
Urbanized Area Formula Grants
Non-Urbanized Area Formula Grants
Discretionary Capital Program
Metropolitan Planning Funds (Section 5303)
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide iv September 2004
-------
Table of Contents - continued
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 47
Transportation and Community and System preservation Pilot Program (TCSP)
Surface Transportation Program
Transportation Planning
Transportation Enhancement
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
Department of Treasury — Tax Incentives 50
Brownfields Expensing Tax Incentive
Rehabilitation Tax Credits
Industrial Development Bonds
Low Income Housing Tax Credits
Community Development Financial Institution Fund (CDFI)
New Markets Tax Credits
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency- Community Development Division
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 55
Community Affairs Program
Partnership Promotion and Support Services
Federal Housing Finance Board 57
Community Investment Program
Housing Credit and Economic Development Regulations
Cash Investment Advance Programs (CICA)
Federal Home Loan Bank Standby Letters of Credit (LOG)
Affordable Housing Program (AHP)
Support for Local Financing
General Services Administration 59
Community Involvement
Partnering
Small Business Administration 61
Loan Guarantee Program
Section 504 Certified Development Company (CDC) Program
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide v September 2004
-------
Introduction
Brownfield sites are everywhere. The legacy of the nation's industrial past is evident in
communities all across the country. Often abandoned, typically contaminated manufacturing sites dot the
landscape of cities and towns of all size, tucked in odd corners of communities as well as dominating
waterfronts and urban centers. And changing economic fortunes also influences the fabric of many
communities, symbolized by shuttered commercial facilities, dying malls, and abandoned gas stations.
All of these sites pose significant challenges for local officials, economic development agencies, and
community residents.
Bringing new activity to these "brownfield" sites can be a costly proposition. What we've seen,
after 15 years of experience with brownfields, is that the legal and procedural hurdles of acquiring,
cleaning, and reusing these sites can still be expensive in terms of site preparation expenses and fees, and
costly in terms of time delays. Site evaluation processes, testing, legal issues to resolve, and other factors
can discourage private participation in activities to bring previously used properties back to productive
use.
Today, critical funding gaps are, in fact, the primary deterrent to site and facility reuse. The
financing situation is especially gloomy for start-up firms or small companies with little collateral outside
the business. But what we are also seeing after 15 years experience in financing brownfield reuse is that
small amounts of public funds can lead to big private investment — with small infusions of the critical
first dollars for site assessment and cleanup leading to big follow-on private investments. Clearly, the
public sector — and especially the federal government — can help provide the key investments that can do
much to help level the economic playing field between greenfield and brownfield sites. A key lesson
from the success stories in place is that public-sector financial assistance is often needed to make
brownfield projects work. Many cannot go forward without some kind of involvement by the public
sector. To this end, a number of federal programs - while not specifically targeted to brownfield needs -
- are, in fact, well-suited to support site characterization and reuse activities.
For decades, federal development and finance mechanisms have been used to stimulate economic
activity in certain geographic areas or industries, or under certain types of situations, when private capital
markets chose not to participate. Now, publicly-driven economic development initiatives are reaching
into new sectors and incorporating new concerns, such as environmental improvement. Brownfield
projects at contaminated sites represent a logical extension of the mission of many of the programs that
federal agencies currently operate.
Special Costs Facing Brownfields
Brownfield projects face financing challenges that can foil efforts to assemble a complete
funding package. These gaps typically involve capital shortages for three activities specific to
brownfields:
• conducting early-stage site assessments, to determine exactly what contamination needs
to be addressed;
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide September 2004
-------
• defining a site remediation plan, which owners or developers need to take the site
through a state voluntary response program that allows the use of institutional controls or
provides some finality on liability; and
• carrying out the cleanup itself.
In addition to these special costs, typical financing costs for conventional sites may be higher for
brownfield sites. Brownfield developers almost invariably have to pledge a higher rate of return to their
investors or lenders to persuade them to assume the higher perceived risk associated with the project.
Extra underwriting costs can add significantly to the costs of loan processing and review procedures —
and be harder for the project to absorb in the long run. And lenders usually require developers to have at
least 25 percent equity in the project to make sure that the borrower has sufficient capital at risk.
How Can Public Programs Help?
The most successful brownfield redevelopment efforts recognize private lender and developer
concerns and perceived risks. They aim to help private parties address financing concerns and better
manage brownfield risks by meeting at least one of the following objectives:
• Ensuring a minimum return: Incentives such as loan guarantees or companion loans
can ensure a minimum return or quantify any potential loss. Public programs can also
can offer support, such as environmental insurance, that limits the borrower's exposure
to unforseen problems that affect the value of collateral or the borrower's ability to pay.
• Reducing the borrower's cost of financing: Financial tools such as loan subsidies can
reduce interest costs on project loans (for example, with tax-exempt financing or
low-interest loans). Program staff also can reduce loan underwriting and documentation
costs by offering loan packaging assistance or technical support, such as the type that
might be available through Community Development Corporations (CDCs). In some
cases, public entities can help cut borrowing costs by partnering with site users to
prepare records and help maintain institutional controls.
• Offering terms or incentives to ease the borrower's financial situation. Tools like tax
abatements, tax credits, or grace periods can improve the project's cash flow and make
the project numbers work. These tools can be helpful in mixed-use project scenarios that
include open space. Similarly, training and technical assistance services can offset
project costs and reduce a site reuser's need for cash.
• Offering assistance or information that provides investor and lender comfort: Links to
information about new remedial technologies, along with performance data for new
technologies and institutional controls, or insurance that can help transfer risk, can
increase the investor's and lender's comfort level with a brownfield project.
• Providing direct financing help. When contamination is suspected, money for site
assessment and cleanup is the hardest piece of the financing puzzle to solve. Therefore,
providing grants or forgivable loans for these purposes may be critical.
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 2 September 2004
-------
How Did We Get Here? Evolution of the Federal Role Since "Brownfields" Emerged
In the early 1990s, court interpretations of the Superfund law brought lightly contaminated sites
under the CERCLA regulatory umbrella and also brought lenders into the chain of control and liability.
This led to numerous projects going belly up, as capital fled from developed cities and sites in the face of
mostly perceived fears. This was really the birth of the brownfield issue as we know it.
Congress tried early on, but was not able to pass any clarifying legislation as the issue continued
to haunt local officials trying to revitalize their distressed areas. Obviously something needed to be done,
and in the absence of federal legislative activity the states — with federal EPA's administrative
concurrence — developed what came to be known as "voluntary cleanup programs," based on a response
process allowed that brownfield cleanup and reuse to go forward. Gradually, both local governments and
the private market saw this as a process that encouraged collaboration instead of confrontation. Today,
49 states have these VCPs in place; a decade ago, only a handful did.
EPA encouraged this shift in practical responsibility to the states through policy guidance and
funding for state and local brownfield efforts. Along the way, in response to both pressure and support
from many mayors, EPA created the first brownfield pilots in 1993 — in Cuyahoga County/Cleveland,
Ohio; Bridgeport, Connecticut; and Richmond, Virginia. These communities tested out some of the
emerging cleanup and reuse approaches, and formed some of the first brownfield revitalization
partnerships, to address financial and technical brownfield barriers — approaches that are now
commonplace.
The first federal brownfield bill was introduced in 1993, to bring funding to bear and formalize a
process that would allow the states and their VCPs to work with communities and private interests to
move forward with certainty on lesser contaminated sites. It was introduced to deal with lender liability,
prospective purchaser, and other issues that brought the urban revitalization process to a standstill in
many cities. This simple bill had to take a complex path to enactment, taking more than eight years of
legislative fine-tuning and wrangling. But on January 11, 2002, President Bush signed the Brownfields
Revitalization Act signed into law. The Act does three important things:
• authorizes program funding;
• clarifies liability for innocent landowners, contiguous property owners, and prospective
purchasers; and
• establishes finality by establishing a Superfund enforcement bar, in essence, delegating
authority for brownfields sign-off to states.
Leveraging Federal Programs
Cities and towns, and private site owners, have used nearly two dozen federal programs to help
finance some aspect of brownfield reuse —basic site preparation, planning, site assessment, cleanup, and
construction. Only three of these programs explicitly focus on brownfields: the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) assessment and cleanup programs, and the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) brownfield economic development initiative (known as BEDI), which is
generally available only to block-grant entitlement cities. In terms of other federal programs, potential
users need to apply some creativity to make the brownfields connection — to make their needs for site
assessment and cleanup funding conform to the eligibility criteria and priorities of other programs, which
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 3 September 2004
-------
may target issues such as slums or blight, support infrastructure renewal, or promote job creation and
retention.
This guide reviews the extensive initiatives at the Environmental Protection Agency, and then
examines in alphabetical order the resources available in other departments and agencies which could be
applied in brownfield situations. The Institute collected the information by analyzing program
requirements and talking with spokespersons from each of the agencies, to identify those program
components best suited to meet brownfield redevelopment, financial, and technical assistance needs.
This 2004 version provides current program contact names, identifies program changes, and provides
(when available), the most recent appropriations figures. This updated edition also features
"BROWNFIELDS LINKS," short descriptions of each agency's offerings and the entities that can use them,
and suggestions to "THINK ABOUT" for making long-time programs fit emerging brownfield needs. It
also recaps the "BROWNFIELDS ROLE" that each agency is pursuing.
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 4 September 2004
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
http ://www. ep a. gov/b ro wnfields/
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides grants to assess site contamination - targeted to local and tribal governments (and states
in some cases)
Q Provides grants to carry out site cleanup - targeted to local and tribal governments (and states
and non-profit development organizations in some cases)
Q Offers grants to projects and community organizations to address environmental problems
affecting low-income and predominantly minority populations - targeted to state, county, and
local governments; and federally recognized tribal governments; and nonprofit community
organizations
Q Provides training opportunities in the environmental field for residents of communities affected
by brownfields - targeted to local governments for use by a variety of stakeholders
Q Provides capital to establish revolving loan funds, which state and local governments can use to
lend (or make sub-grants) for brownfield cleanup - targeted to private sector entities through
state and local government
Q Provides grants for cooperative sustainable development efforts - targeted to local and tribal
governments, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations
Q Funds environmental education programs - targeted to state environment agencies; state, local,
and tribal education agencies; academic institutions; nonprofit organizations; and educational
broadcasting agencies
Q Provides grants to capitalize revolving loan funds (SRFs) for clean water projects - targeted to
private sector entities through states
THINK ABOUT... using EPA resources to assess sites, for marketing purposes...conducting cleanup to
bring them to a "shovel ready" situation...offsetting info and training costs of brownfield
redevelopment...linking water quality improvement efforts to brownfield activities
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been the most active federal agency in
promoting the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields and other underused contaminated properties.
The EPA began its brownfield effort in 1993 guided by the belief that "environmental cleanup is a
building block to economic development, not a stumbling block, [and] that revitalizing contaminated
property must go hand-in-hand with bringing life and economic vitality back to communities."
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS — DIRECT FINANCING
Three EPA financing programs - EPA's flagship effort - have been used extensively to spur
brownfield redevelopment. The Brownfield Revitalization Act authorizes up to $200 million annually
for EPA's site assessment, cleanup, and revolving loan fund capitalization programs (although Congress
to date has not provided more than $123 million for these programs and related operations and support).
New statutory authority allows EPA to extend eligibility to sites with petroleum contamination, and in
fact requires that 25 percent of all brownfield funding go to petroleum-impacted Congress also
broadened the program's usefulness to community revitalization efforts by allowing grant and loan funds
to be used to purchase environmental insurance - which will help attract and leverage more private
funding into these projects — as well as to monitor institutional controls - which can help reduce site
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 5 September 2004
-------
cleanup costs. Grant funds cannot be used for administrative costs (as opposed to eligible programmatic
costs).
In addition, a fourth financing program is mentioned below. The state clean water revolving loan
fund shows promise to help address brownfield situations; it has been used this way in several states.
Assessment Grants. Site assessment grants have been used to fund a variety of pre-cleanup
environmental activities such as site assessment, inventory, characterization, prioritization, community
outreach, and cleanup planning and design. Local governments - as well as Indian tribes, states, and
entities such as redevelopment agencies, regional councils, and land clearance agencies - are eligible to
apply for site assessment grants. EPA awards up to $200,000 per jurisdiction or site for these purposes,
although in the case of large sites or those with significant contamination, an applicant may ask to waive
the limit and seek up to $350,000.
Cleanup Grants. First available in fiscal 2003 as a result of the new law, site cleanup grants
provide up to $200,000 per site to fund cleanup conducted by cities, development agencies, non-profit
groups, and similar entities at sites that they own. A 20 percent match (of funds or in-kind services) is
required, although this can be waived in the case of hardship.
Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grants. RLF grants provide up to $1 million per recipient,
available for five years, to establish state or locally administered loan funds. Like assessment grants,
these capitalization grants can go to local governments, states, Indian tribes, states, and entities such as
redevelopment agencies, regional councils, and land clearance agencies. These RLFs can make low- or
no-interest loans for cleanup. Beginning in fiscal 2003, recipients may use up to 40 percent of a
capitalization award for to make cleanup sub-grants at sites owned by sub-grantees. Repayment of sub-
grants is not required. A 20 percent non-federal cost share in the form of money, labor, services, or
materials is required.
In 1999, one of the first loans made from an RLF was extended to Blues Brothers Harley
Davidson in Stamford, Connecticut. The $160,000 loan allowed the company to defray the total cost of
abatement and removal of contaminated material at a brownfield site in a mixed-use area of commercial,
industrial, and residential development. By December 2000, the $1.5-million redevelopment project had
led to the renovation of two turn-of-the-century buildings, which were combined and used for the Harley-
Davidson/Buell Dealership, with a showroom, offices, and maintenance facility.
Clean Water State Revolving Loan Funds. Clean water state revolving loan funds (CWSRFs)
have barely made it to the radar screen as a brownfields financing tool, but they have considerable
potential for use at sites where water quality is an issue. Capitalized by EPA, these funds can be used by
states for loans of up to 20 years to finance activities that include brownfield mitigation to correct or
prevent water quality problems, and which have a revenue stream to provide for loan repayment. There
is no limit on the amount of funding that a project can access. Only a few states - notably New Mexico,
New York, and Ohio - have started using this approach, but EPA allows all states to do it. Last year,
CWSRFs financed nearly $3 billion in water quality projects.
Ohio, for example, issues loans for brownfield assessment and cleanup through its state Water
Pollution Control Fund. Help is available to both municipalities and private entities participating in the
state's voluntary cleanup program. One of the first projects taking advantage of the Ohio CWSRF
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 6 September 2004
-------
for brownfield purposes was carried out by the Grant Realty Company. It used a CWSRF loan to
clean contaminated groundwater and soils at the 20-acre, former Sunar Hauserman industrial site in
Cleveland, preparing it for commercial use. The company used the site to build a centrally located
corporate headquarters for its subsidiary. Grant Realty purchased the property, despite its contamination,
and obtained a $1.6-million CWSRF loan at an interest rate of approximately 4 percent to cover the cost
of treating contaminated subsurface soil and groundwater. The repayment source came from a
tank-cleaning operation, with a personal loan guarantee and a second position mortgage as additional
collateral.
States set CWSRF project priorities within broad EPA guidelines. Eligible activities may
include brownfield cleanup to correct or prevent water quality problems such as groundwater
contamination. State revolving funds can cover the costs of a variety of activities, including the
excavation and disposal of underground storage tanks; capping wells; excavation, removal, and disposal
of contaminated soil or sediments; well abandonment; and Phase I, n, or in assessments. Each state
determines who may use its revolving funds; EPA allows communities, municipalities, individuals,
citizen groups, and nonprofit organizations to be loan recipients. Usually, loans are repaid through fees
paid by developers; recreational fees; dedicated portions of state, county, or local government taxes;
storm water management fees; or wastewater user charges.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS -- TRAINING, OUTREACH, AND OTHER SUPPORT
EPA also operates several other programs which can be useful to communities as they pursue
brownfield revitalization strategies.
Job Training Grants. The job training program helps to integrate training activities with
brownfield redevelopment projects. This effort links the goal of encouraging site cleanup with that of
training for jobs in the environmental field, including innovative treatment technologies - so people
affected by brownfields can be trained to help address them. Colleges, universities, community job
training organizations, states and local governments, and Indian tribes are eligible to apply. Recipients
can get up to $200,000 to provide training for residents in communities impacted by brownfields.
Targeted Site Assessments (TBAs). Under the TEA program, EPA provides either funding or
technical assistance for environmental assessments at brownfield sites. States, municipalities, and tribes
are eligible to seek TEA funding for sites which they recommend to EPA for assessment. Sites are
prioritized and selected on a case-by-case basis. In some instances, EPA may choose to give TEA grants
directly to states, for site assessments at properties which they identify. TEA assistance may be used for
Phase I and Phase n environmental assessments, as well as determining cleanup alternatives and their
costs.
Environmental Enforcement Education Grant Program. This grant program sponsored by
EPA's Office of Environmental Education supports projects that enhance the public's awareness,
knowledge, and skills to make informed decisions that affect environmental quality. Any local
educational agency, state educational or environmental agency, college or university, not-for-profit, or
non-commercial broadcasting agency is eligible for funding. A 25 percent non-federal match is required.
For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/enviroed/grants.html.
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 7 September 2004
-------
Environmental Justice Small Grants Program. Non-profit community based, grass roots
organizations, churches, and other groups with a focus on community-based issues are eligible to apply
for grants. Applicants can seek up to $20,000 for projects that improve communication among
stakeholders and build community capacity to identify and resolve environmental justice problems that
can affect brownfield revitalization efforts.
Contact
Anthony P. Raia
US EPA Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment
Mail Code 5105 T
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-2758
raia. anthony@epa.gov
For more information, please visit http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/.
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 8 September 2004
-------
Appalachian Regional Commission
http://www.arc.gov/
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides grants for roads and highways - targeted to state and local governments
Q Offers planning and technical assistance to attract private investment to distressed areas -
targeted to local governments (and development districts/non-profit entities in some cases) to
support new uses
THINK ABOUT,,,,,tapping ARC funding to meet site access road and similar infrastructure support
needs of brownfieldprojects, including mine scarred lands...or helping cover planning costs at sites
being reused
The mission of the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is to be an advocate and partner
with the people of Appalachian to create opportunities for self-sustaining economic development and
improved quality of life. ARC was established by Congress in 1965 to support economic and social
development in the Appalachian Region. The Commission is a unique government partnership composed
of the governors of the 13 Appalachian states and a presidential appointee representing the federal
government. Grassroots participation is provided through local officials and a network of local
development districts.
The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) administers several small economic development
and infrastructure grant programs in the region. They include programs for development planning and
technical assistance, highway development, local access roads, vocational educational facilities, and
water and sewer system construction. ARC can also support small business start-ups and expansions.
These programs are organized in several divisions, including the Appalachian Development Highway
System; Economic and Human Development Activities; an Entrepreneurship Initiative; and a Business
Development Revolving Loan Fund program. They all are designed to improve the economic climate in
distressed areas to make them better able to attract private investment - important brownfield
considerations.
ARC invests in projects that address the Commission's strategic goals. ARC grants typically
finance projects in the following areas: education and workforce training programs, water and sewer
system construction, leadership development programs, small business creation and support, and
development of health care resources. Projects with the potential to generate new jobs are usually given
top priority during the review process. Grant applications must be submitted by the state office
designated by the governor, and they often are submitted on behalf of local governments, multi-county
organizations, educational institutions, and non-profit organizations.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
A large portion of ARC's Area Development funds is used for infrastructure development in
support of local efforts to create jobs and improve the quality oflife in rural Appalachia. Occasionally
these projects include the adaptive redevelopment of industrial buildings or mining facilities, or water
and sewer service for brownfield sites. Because all ARC grants originate at the state level, applicants
considering brownfield redevelopment projects should contact their state ARC program manager to
request pre-application information. The Local Development District serving the county in which the
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 9 September 2004
-------
project is located may offer guidance on a project's eligibility for funding and assistance in preparing a
grant application.
BROWNFIELDS PARTNERSHIP ROLE
A large portion of ARC's Area Development funds are used for water and sewer system
extensions of service to industrial parks for the purpose of creating and retaining jobs in rural
Appalachia. In the past, several of these funded projects have involved brownfield sites. ARC has
partnered with the National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals (NALGEP)
since 2001 to conduct regional workshops in Appalachia that encourage brownfields redevelopment. In
addition, ARC entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with EPA in FY 2000 that calls for
the two agencies to coordinate their policies and activities in support of brownfields assessments,
cleanup, and redevelopment. The agency also participates in federal agency working groups for
brownfields and mine-scarred lands.
In addition, ARC has committed to providing technical assistance to ARC's Local Development
Districts in a variety of ways that empowers greater awareness of the potential brownfields resources
available to rural areas, and continuing to encourage ARC's state partners to use their Area Development
funds for projects that create and retain jobs in brownfields redevelopment areas. ARC is also working
to increase the awareness of brownfields cleanup and redevelopment programs and benefits, through:
• Financial and technical assistance for Appalachian communities, local development districts, and
grassroots organizations to develop proposals for integrating brownfields assessments and
cleanup with economic development planning;
• Coordination of joint activities between Appalachian states, local development districts, and
EPA field staff in order to help implement brownfields redevelopment projects at the state level;
• Financial and technical assistance to Appalachian communities to help leverage funds for
assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of brownfields; and
• Collaboration in j oint projects or proposal reviews for competitions sponsored by either agency.
Contact
Eric Stockton
Appalachian Regional Commission
1666 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, DC 20009-1068
(202) 884-7752
estockton@arc.gov
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 10 September 2004
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
http ://www.f s.fed.us
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides technical assistance for brownfield projects in selected areas - targeted to EPA grantee
local governments, federal Empowerment Communities and Enterprise Zones
Q Offers technical and financial assistance for sustainable redevelopment and reuse projects -
targeted to state and local governments and community-based groups in Atlanta, Seattle, New
York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, Las Vegas, East St. Louis, South Florida
(four county area), Philadelphia, Boston, and Buffalo
THINK AsouT,,,brownfield project landscaping needs,,,addressing forestry opportunities of mine
scarred lands
The Forest Service's mission is to achieve quality land management under the sustainable
multiple-use management concept in order to meet the diverse needs of people. In connection with
brownfield redevelopment, the Forest Service is helping states and communities use the forests wisely in
order to promote rural economic development and a quality rural environment.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
The Forest Service has committed a total of $400,000 to provide technical assistance to the 16
Brownfield Showcase Communities. This assistance will be administered through several different
activities, detailed below.
State Urban Forestry Coordinators. These coordinators help encourage environmentally
responsible redevelopment within the Showcase Communities. In particular, they work closely with
municipal governments to develop strategic plans for brownfield reuse that ensures that infrastructure
development is environmentally sensitive, and to protect urban natural resources.
Open Space Development and Tree Planting. Efforts are being made to link Showcase
Communities with organizations that provide technical assistance and funding for open space
development and tree planting, including the National Tree Trust, American Forests, ReLeaf Fund, and
National Arbor Day Foundation. Research also is being conducted on the effects of using trees during
the brownfield remediation process.
USDA Urban Resources Partnership. The Urban Resources Partnership (URP) is a
multi-agency initiative that provides funding and technical assistance to community-led environmental
projects. The Forest Service has selected 13 areas (noted above) in which the URP has been established.
In each of these cities, Forest Service staff collaborate with municipal officials and other state and federal
agency stakeholders in order to provide assistance packages, primarily to nonprofit community based
organizations. The URP works closely with community development corporations as a mechanism for
making its resources available at the neighborhood level. Assistance can include grant funds, technical
assistance, and/or access to existing agency resources. Other communities may be added through a
competitive application process as other cities "graduate" from direct federal support.
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 11 September 2004
-------
BROWNFIELDS PARTNERSHIP ROLE
Some USDA field offices are more aggressively working with EPA brownfield program
grantees, and federal Empowerment Zones (EZs) and Enterprise Communities (ECs), to provide
educational programs and training for brownfields landscaping projects. This includes workshops for
"Master Gardeners", pesticide applicators, and youth development. USDA also has contacts in urban
Showcase Communities to monitor the success of USDA projects. USDA provides technical support to
communities to support greenways and other land conservation projects that are more frequently being
included in brownfield revitalization efforts.
The Forest Service has also committed to:
• Working with EPA and other federal agencies to assist with the redevelopment of brownfield
sites located in rural communities or near mine-scarred lands;
• Establishing a USDA-wide Brownfields Subcommittee to increase the agency's focus on its
potential brownfields role;
• Continuing support of communities that want to convert existing brownfields into natural open
space parks, tree-covered linear parks, and other land conservation projects; and
• Assisting rural and urban brownfields communities apply for USDA grants and loans.
Contact
Blake Velde
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Hazardous Materials Management Group
1400 Independence Avenue SW
MS 9100
Washington, DC 20250-9100
(202) 205-0906
Fax:(202)401-4770
blake.velde@usda.gov
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 12 September 2004
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDA Rural Development
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides grant, loan, and loan guarantee assistance for a variety of business, commercial, and
industrial projects in small towns and rural areas - targeted to banks, non-profit development
organizations, tribes, cities and counties, and other public entities
Q Supports the installation and improvement of critical infrastructure needed to support economic
development — targeted to state and local governments, tribes, water districts, banks and other
commercial lenders
Q Helps finance the construction of key public facilities — sewer systems, firehouses, etc - that can
support brownfield revitalization efforts
THINK ABOUT...using USDA/RDA resources to meet various brownfield needs within the context of
small town or rural needs — real estate acquisition, cleanup, demolition, working capital, water and
sewer system improvements, supportive community facilities
The mission of USDA Rural Development is to increase economic opportunity in small towns
and rural areas not traditionally served by other federal development programs. RDA's programs focus
on non-farm business and community development projects, including major infrastructure systems like
water and sewer. As such, USDA is in a key position to support the kinds of activities critical to a
community brownfield revitalization effort. In 2003, USDA Rural Development programs were credited
with creating 150,000 new jobs and retaining an additional 200,000 others.
USDA Rural Development operates three types of programs- business development, community
improvement, and housing. Efforts in the first two areas are most suited to meet the challenges of rural
brownfields.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
Business programs are structured to work in partnership with the private sector and with
community-based organizations to provide both direct financial assistance and help with business
planning. Their common mission is to fund efforts that create jobs, generate business activity, and
promote a clean rural environment. Individuals, corporations, private companies, partnerships, and
cooperatives, as well as public entities, nonprofit corporations, and tribes are eligible to tap into some or
all of the programs noted below.
Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans (B&I). The B&I program guarantees up to 80
percent of a loan, up to $10 million, made to a private business by a commercial lender. Proceeds can be
used for buildings, equipment, and related real estate activities.
Intermediary Relending Program. This program capitalizes locally run revolving loan funds
for small businesses not able to secure adequate bank financing on their own. Like the B&I program,
resources from the Intermediary Relending program can be used for real estate and equipment purposes.
Community facility programs offer grants, loans, and loan guarantees designed to develop
essential community facilities for public use in rural areas - schools, medical facilities, fire and rescue
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 13 September 2004
-------
stations, public buildings, and transportation. Assistance is generally available to municipalities,
counties, special-Opurpose districts, tribes, and non-profit corporations. Key programs include:
Community Facility Program: Direct and Guaranteed Loans, and Facility Grants. The
guarantee portion of this program provides an incentive for commercial lending that will develop
essential community facilities. USDA guarantees loans made by banks for projects such as public
buildings, police and fire stations and equipment, septic systems, and recreational facilities. The direct
loan program does the same thing, except that USDA functions as the lender. In either case, the loans
can run for up to 40 years, or the useful life of the facility (if less than that). In the case of distressed
rural communities, who cannot qualify for a private or USDA loan for essential community facilities,
USDA Rural Development can make grants for these purposes. These are typically limited to $50,000
and may require some cost sharing.
Water and Waste Disposal Loans, Loan Guarantees, and Grants. USDA Rural Development
offers several programs aimed at developing and repairing water, sewer, storm drainage, and solid waste
systems. Loans can run for up to 40 years. These programs can be used to support industrial
development activities.
BROWNFIELDS PARTNERSHIP ROLE
The brownfields role for USDA Rural Development is starting to merge, as rural communities
make the connection between business and community facility needs and the problems and opportunities
fo brownfield sites. To this end, USDA has committed to continuing agency support of communities that
want to convert existing brownfields into natural open space parks and recreational facilities, as well as
helping rural brownfield communities apply for USDA grants and loans that could be used in these
situations.
Contacts
Inquiries about program applications in specific areas are handled by the agency's state-based
field staff, whose contact information can be accessed through contact maps on the agency's web site -
www.rurdev.usda.gov.
Washington-based program contacts:
William F. Hagy III
Deputy Administrator, Business Programs
bill.hagy@usda.gov
Pandor H. Hadjy
Assistant Deputy Administrator, Business Programs
pandor.hadjy@usda.gov
Georg Shultz
Special Assistant Deputy Administrator, Business Programs
georg.shultz@usda.gov
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 14 September 2004
-------
U.S. Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration
http://www.eda.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Funds infrastructure enhancements in designated redevelopment areas or economic development
centers that serve industry and commerce - targeted to state, local, and tribal governments;
public and private nonprofit organizations
Q Funds state and local implementation of strategies to attract private-sector investment in projects
that strengthen an area's economic base - targeted to state and local governments
Q Provides planning grants to economically distressed states and regions - targeted to state,
regional, local, and tribal governments
Q Funds infrastructure modernization at closed military bases - targeted to local governments,
development organizations, reuse authorities
Q Offers revolving loan funds to stimulate private investment - targeted to local governments,
states, regional development organizations
THINK ABOUT...using EDA to address cleanup and site preparation needs at reviving industrial
areas...street, utility, port, and other infrastructure needs at brownfieldproject sites...site revitalization
planning...site marketing
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has been a pioneer and active participant in
economic development and community revitalization for the past 30 years. EDA's mission is "to lead the
federal economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing
American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy."
Long before the term "brownfields" was coined, the EDA implemented programs to help
economically distressed communities alleviate the adverse conditions created by unemployment. It
continues to provide funding to promote infrastructure development, business development, and
economic revitalization. Since 1997, EDA has invested more than $350 million in over 350 brownfields
revitalization projects. In FY 2003, EDA provided $29 million in funding for 28 brownfield projects.
EDA and EPA since 1995 have had a memorandum of understanding that states their intended objective
to coordinate economic development and environmental protection goals through federal brownfield
initiatives.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
Several EDA programs can be used to facilitate the redevelopment of brownfield sites. These
include the Public Works and Economic Development program; the Economic Adjustment program; and
the Planning Program for Economic Development Districts, Indian Tribes and Redevelopment Areas, and
States and Urban Areas.
Public Works and Economic Development Program. The Public Works and Economic
Development Program is EDA's primary initiative that directly affects the redevelopment of brownfield
sites. The program's funding is used to help distressed communities attract resources from the public and
private sectors in order to promote economic development. Since 1965, the program has helped fund
roads, water and sewer facilities, port improvements, and other infrastructure enhancements that serve
industry and commerce; it has been directly responsible for creating more than 1.5 million jobs. Grants
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 15 September 2004
-------
are available to state and local governments, Indian tribes, and public and private nonprofit organizations.
The Public Works Program received $202 million in 2003, with an average grant of $905,000.
Economic Adjustment Program. The Economic Adjustment Program helps states and local
governments that experience sudden and severe economic dislocation or long-term economic
deterioration to design and implement adjustment and redevelopment strategies that will strengthen their
economic base. Many communities across the country suffer economic decline from a variety of factors,
including corporate or industrial restructuring, defense base closures, federal laws and regulations,
environmental degradation, and natural disasters. The program's funding encourages states and local
governments to implement strategies that will attract private-sector investment and participation in
projects that strengthen an area's economic base. EDA has targeted the redevelopment of brownfields as
a necessary and vital component in fulfilling the program's objectives. The Economic Adjustment
program received $45 million in 2003 and provided an average grant of $206,000.
Planning Program for Economic Development Districts, Indian Tribes, Redevelopment
Areas, and States and Urban Areas. EDA has developed two planning programs, with overlapping
policies, to help states and local governments create new jobs, retain existing jobs, and stimulate
industrial and commercial growth in economically-distressed areas. The Planning Program for Economic
Development Districts, Indian Tribes, and Redevelopment Areas and the Planning Program for States and
Urban Areas provide funding that helps the planning process at both the micro and macro levels of
government.
Through the Districts, Tribes, and Redevelopment Areas Program, the EDA promotes workforce
development activities in distressed areas at the local level. Presently, EDA supports 65 Indian tribes and
over 300 economic development districts in the formation and implementation of enterprises intended to
generate and retain jobs in these communities.
Grants under the States and Urban Areas Program assist economically distressed states, sub-state
planning regions, cities, and urban counties to undertake significant new economic development
planning, policy-making, and implementation efforts.
Planning grants, which totaled $24 million in 2003, ranged from $10,000 to $200,000.
BROWNFIELDS PARTNERSHIP ROLE
A big part of EDA's brownfield partnership role is to support multi-agency, sector-based
brownfields redevelopment efforts that are consistent with its mission, focus, investment policy
guidelines, and statutory authorities. For example, EDA is interested in supporting inter-agency efforts
to revitalize brownfields that enhance regional economic competitiveness and support market-driven
cluster development strategies. To this end, EDA has committed to:
• Specifically identifying brownfields redevelopment in its annual Notice of Funding Availability;
• Supporting community and faith-based brownfields redevelopment strategies;
• Maintaining a National Brownfields Coordinator position in its headquarters office; and
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 16 September 2004
-------
• Continuing efforts to link brownfields assessment and cleanup activities with economic
development.
These commitments would carry on the agency's efforts, as exemplified by three project
examples. In 2001, EDA invested $1 million in the Florida's Tampa Port Authority for infrastructure
(i.e., bulkhead) improvements needed to accommodate the expansion plans of industrial tenants, as well
as attract new firms interested in locating in the Tampa Port. The seawall improvements will position the
authority to allow more boat traffic, serve as a catalyst for development or reuse of underused port
property, and improve safety for the Port Authority and companies that lease space. The EDA
investment is expected to result in the creation of 225 private sector jobs with over $10 million in private
capital investments.
In 2000, EDA invested $2 million with the Bridgeport Port Authority in Connecticut to support
the redevelopment of 50 acres of contiguous, vacant, waterfront brownfield property in the Bridgeport
Harbor. The redevelopment effort is expected to create over 500 new jobs, retain 200 existing jobs, and
leverage over $18 million in new private investment. The first tenant, Derecktor Shipyards, is
assembling two 235-foot Alaska Ferries in a new facility, while the remainder of the site is being
improved.
In 1998, EDA provided $600,000 in economic adjustment assistance to the Racine (Wisconsin)
County Economic Development Corporation to capitalize an industrial building revolving loan fund
(RLF) that offers needed gap financing for businesses located within the city of Racine. This RLF
targets under used, abandoned, and blighted properties for redevelopment.
Proposed EDA reauthorization legislation would formalize EDA's role by extending brownfield
eligibility to all of the agency's traditional programs.
Contact
Dennis Alvord
Deputy Director, Intergovernmental Affairs
Economic Development Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7816
14th St. & Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20230
(202) 482-4320
Fax: (202) 482-0995
DAlvord@eda.doc.gov
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 17 September 2004
-------
U. S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
http://www.noaa.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides technical and financial assistance for coastal resource protection and management -
targeted to coastal (including Great Lakes) state, territorial, and local governments
Q Funds workshops in Showcase Communities on brownfields-related coastal management issues -
targeted to local governments in Showcase Communities
Q Coordinates a new "Portfields" initiative (initially targeted to port areas in New Bedford MA,
Tampa FL, and Bellingham WA)
THINK ABOUT,, Planning for a revitalized waterfront and restoring coastal resources,,,linking port
revitalization needs with broader economic developmentpurposes...linking site design needs at
waterfront brownfields to end use planning
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department of
Commerce (DoC) work to balance environmental and economic needs and benefits at waterfront
locations. Since 1997, DoC and NOAA have contributed funding, facilitation, and/or technical expertise
at coastal brownfield sites in New Jersey, New York, Virginia, Wisconsin, Illinois, California, and
others. With its coastal focus and experience in solving critical environmental challenges, NOAA
balances environmental and economic needs in many ways, by:
• rebuilding community waterfronts and redeveloping brownfield sites through its strong
partnerships with coastal states' coastal zone management programs;
• revitalizing port areas through the use of advanced marine transportation tools and services; and
• helping to improve the quality of life, environment, and regional economy by working with local
communities and other agencies on coastal brownfield sites.
NOAA's Office of Sustainable Development and Intergovernmental Affairs sponsors local
workshops focusing on brownfields revitalization. These workshops help communities gather input from
all parties involved in the revitalization process, creating strong partnerships for more efficient action.
NOAA's Coastal Zone Management Program, through its strong partnerships with coastal states, helps
revitalize community waterfronts and redevelop brownfield sites. And NOAA's Office of Response and
Restoration protects and restores contaminated coastal resources and habitats through cost-effective
environmental cleanup and restoration solutions.
NOAA does not offer resources through a consolidated brownfields program, nor are
brownfields managed by one particular office. Rather, existing agency programs provide resources and
technical assistance to coastal communities for brownfields cleanup and reuse.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
Office of Response and Restoration. This office protects and restores contaminated coastal
resources and habitats (including brownfields) by first assessing and evaluating risks and then
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 18 September 2004
-------
implementing cost-effective environmental cleanup and restoration solutions. ORR is currently
providing this support is 28 coastal communities.
Coastal Zone Management Program, through its strong partnerships with coastal states, helps
revitalize community waterfronts and direct resources useful to helping redevelop brownfield sites.
NOAA's Office of Education and Sustainable Development has provided funding to and
sponsored workshops for coastal cities to assist them in more thoroughly planning their brownfields
redevelopment activities.
NOAA's Coastal Services Center helps develop the expertise of coastal resource professional
by giving them the tools to engage communities in land and water issues, including the redevelopment of
brownfields. Through Center-led workshops, planners and managers build valuable skills to help local
governments collaborate with the public and manage conflict.
What NOAA Brings to the Table for Coastal Revitalization
Portfields. NOAA's premier brownfield effort is its leadership of the interagency Portfields
effort, which includes hosting interagency meetings to coordinate of three initial Portfields projects.
NOAA has sponsored and facilitated local kick-off meetings in Tampa, New Bedford, and Bellingham.
The kick-off meetings brought together the Portfields Federal agencies, the port, and other stakeholders
to identify the port's goals and needs; match federal agencies' capabilities and resources to the port's
needs; and develop an action plan. NOAA provided $90,000 to support the implementation of the
Portfields pilots, and technical expertise, tools and services to the pilot ports based on the pilot's needs.
This includes risk assessment, cost-effective cleanup strategies, habitat restoration, planning, and
environmental permit review.
NOAA, in partnership with state coastal management programs, will identify opportunities to
support Portfields pilots through implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Eligible
activities may include community and waterfront revitalization planning, coastal resource protection and
enhancement of public access.
BROWNFIELDS PARTNERSHIP ROLE
NOAA is working to expand their activities at coastal brownfield sites. Potential services
include:
• Working to assess and safely clean up coastal contamination to revitalize local economies.
• Promoting the compatible and sustainable use of coastal areas for urban fisheries, port and
industrial activities, recreation, and tourism
• Developing and delivering a decision-making database and mapping tools to assist in repairing
sites and restoring habitat. Lending expertise in advanced marine transportation tools and
services that will revitalize communities.
More specifically, NOAA has committed to leading an interagency "Portfields" project (as
described above) that will focus on the redevelopment and reuse of idled or abandoned lands in and
around ports, harbors, and marine transportation hubs. The agency will also provide funding to coastal
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 19 September 2004
-------
states for brownfields redevelopment as part of waterfront revitalization efforts, and document successful
brownfields waterfront revitalization approaches.
Contacts
Richard Legatski
NOAA Office of Legislative Affairs
(202) 482-4638
Kenneth Walker
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
MC: SSMC
1305 East West Highway, Rm. 11340
Silver Spring, MD 20912
(301) 713-3113 Ext. 157
Fax:(301)713-4367
kenneth.walker@noaa.gov
NOAA Coastal Brownfields
http://www.brownfields.noaa.gov/welcome.html
Portfields
http://www.brownfields.noaa.gov/htmls/portfields/portfields.html
Coastal Zone Management Program BAD LINK
http://www.nos.noaa.gov/ocrm/czm/welcome.html
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 20 September 2004
-------
U.S. Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers
http://www.usace.army.mil
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Executes projects emphasizing ecosystem restoration, inland and coastal navigation, and flood
and storm damage reduction that may be brownfield-related. Projects are identified by
communities with their local Corps districts and executed if they are recommended by the
Administration and authorized by Congress - targeted to state and local governments
Q Provides technical support on a cost-reimbursable basis to federal agencies for brownfield
activities - targeted to local governments working with federal agencies
THINK ABOUT,,,requesting assistance from the Corps for planning for projects and related amenities in
waterfront situations..defining Corps eligible projects like riverbank restoration that can enhance
brownfield revitalization efforts
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manages and executes engineering, construction, and real
estate programs for the Army and Air Force, as well as for other federal agencies as assigned. It also has
responsibility for investigating, developing, and maintaining the nation's water and related environmental
resources, including projects to assure water quality control and enhancement of outdoor recreation,
among other things.
The Corps of Engineers position is that "for a brownfield reuse to become truly sustainable, a
three-pronged approach that considers economic, environmental, and cultural resources must be
considered not only in the short term, but also in the long term." The Corps maintains that by bringing
ecology back into the urban setting, where the majority of brownfields are located, it can help reverse and
prevent suburban sprawl by encouraging inhabitants to reside within established, developed areas.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
Technical Assistance. While the Corps is not authorized to conduct a brownfield program per
se and does not provide grant money to communities, it can conduct specific projects that support
brownfield assessment, cleanup, and revitalization efforts to help communities achieve greater
environmental sustainability and economic revitalization. Those projects generally relate to ecosystem
restoration, inland and coastal navigation, and flood and storm damage reduction. They may involve any
of an array of Corps authorities, such as planning assistance and beneficial use of dredged material.
Reimbursable Support. The Corps' reimbursable support to communities is limited (under
section 211 of the 2002 Water Resources Development Act) to those activities for which it is "uniquely
qualified." Under the Economy in Government Act, the Corps may perform work, including technical
assistance for brownfield-related activities, for non-DoD federal agencies on a cost-reimbursable basis.
Civil Works Funding. Communities interested in obtaining assistance through the Corps' Civil
Works Program can contact their local Corps district. Costs for most projects are shared between the
federal government and the local cost-share partner, who must comply with all Corps procedures.
Centers of Corps Expertise. Several organizations in the Corps have demonstrated capability
and expertise in specialized areas related to brownfields. The Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive West
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 21 September 2004
-------
Center of Expertise (HTRW-CX) focuses on environmental remediation and other environmental
compliance issues through a variety of technical areas, such as environmental regulation and laws;
innovative technologies; environmental and ecological risk assessment; chemical, environmental, and
geotechnical engineering; contracting; and cost recovery. Additional centers focus on the preservation of
historic buildings and structures and rapid response to hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste incidents.
BROWNFIELDS PARTNERSHIP ROLE
The Corps may provide planning and technical assistance to communities with brownfields. For
major water resource-related endeavors, the Corps will guide communities to the appropriate
Congressional contacts for authorization and appropriation support.
The Corps is also partnering with EPA on eight pilots to foster interagency and stakeholder
partnerships that promote integrated solutions to restoring and managing water resources of degraded
urban rivers. Whenever feasible, the Corps will use its existing Civil Works authorities to promote more
integrated regional water resource plans that balance revitalization and environmental goals.
Contacts
Kip Huston
202-761-4574
Nancy Porter
202-566-2751
Jane Mergler
202-761-0314
Mark Mimick
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic & Radioactive Waste Center of Expertise Specialists
12565 West Center Road
Omaha, Nebraska 68144-3869
402-697-2558
mark.l.mimick@usace.army.mil
Program Description and Regional Contacts
http://brownfields.sac.usace.army.mil/index.html
Hazardous, Toxic & Radioactive Waste Center of Expertise
http://www.environmental.usace.army.mil/info/technical/hp/hpwelcome/hprad/hpexpert/hpexpert.html
Preservation of Historic Buildings and Structures
http://WAVW.nws.usace.army.miVPublicMenu/Menu.cfm?sitename=historic&pagename=mainpage
Rapid Response HTRW Center
http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/cd-rr/default.htm
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 22 September 2004
-------
U. S. Department of Defense
Office of Economic Adjustment
http://www.oea.gov
BROWNFIELD LINK
Q Provides extensive information on redevelopment of closed military base properties -may benefit
all brownfield community stakeholders
THINK ABOUT,,,offsettingproject technical information needs,,,usingDOD/OEA models to help with
conceptualization of prospective reuse strategies
The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), through its work in communities affected by military
base realignments and closures (BRAC), is experienced in economic adjustment activities. DOD's
primary tools for its economic adjustment projects are the Defense Economic Adjustment program and
the BRAC Program, which govern the department's efforts to close surplus military facilities, return them
to local communities, and help them with site remediation and redevelopment. The Office of the
Secretary of Defense coordinates DOD's efforts, operating through the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Installations and Environment) and the Office of Economic Adjustment.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
The Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) has gained extensive experience with redevelopment
where property has some level of contamination, and this information may be useful to both military and
non-military impacted communities who must address the problems of obsolete and abandoned sites.
OEA's goal is to integrate the cleanup issues into the overall planning for redevelopment, and since many
base closure actions result in extensive planning and review of economic development goals, there is
usually an excellent opportunity to adapt the techniques of brownfield redevelopment as elements of a
larger set of community development actions.
OEA staff represent a broad and extensive range of experience with respect to the military:
economic, industrial and community development; urban and land use planning; program and economic
impact analysis; real estate; and worker retraining. Project managers also bring knowledge and a
working network with other federal agencies to help communities put together an adjustment program
that combines federal, state, local, and private resources.
BROWNFIELDS PARTNERSHIP ROLE
DoD has committed to clean up and encourage redevelopment at closed and realigned DoD bases
and make them available as community assets for productive reuse.
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 23 September 2004
-------
Contacts
Joe Cartwright, Senior Project Manager
Office of Economic Adjustment
400 Army Navy Drive
Arlington, VA 22202-2884
(703) 604-5844
Fax: (703) 604-5843
joseph.cartwright@osd.mil
Kurt Kratz
Director of Environmental Cleanup
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Installations and Environment (I&E)
Department of Defense
3C765
The Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-3400
(703) 697-5372
(703) 695-4981 Fax
kurt.kratz@osd.mil
Defense Environmental Network and Information eXchange
http ://www. denix. osd.mil
Base Realignment and Closure
http://www.defenselink.mil/brac
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 24 September 2004
-------
U.S. Department of Energy
http://www.doe.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Funds research on assessment and cleanup technology - targeted to universities, labs, and private
industry
Q Offers information on integrating brownfield redevelopment with energy efficiency and
sustainability- targeted to all brownfield community stakeholders
THINK AsouT,,,using new, applicable DOE-supported remedial technologies to reduce cleanup
costs...linkingprospective site users to DOE information on technology innovations
The Department of Energy (DOE) has been the caretaker and manager of the nation's arsenal of
nuclear weapons, the facilities that manufacture the weapons, and the property on which the weapons are
located. Many DOE properties that were once busy with nuclear manufacturing and warehousing activity
now lie dormant or idle, due in part to the downsizing of the military in general and to the closure of
nuclear weapons facilities in particular. As a result, DOE has been forced to consider the future uses of
these abandoned and contaminated properties. Many contain low levels of contamination because they
were used only as buffer zones for the nuclear weapons facilities; just a few parcels were used in the
production of nuclear weapons and are highly contaminated.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy/Center of Excellence for Sustainable
Development. This DOE office serves as a resource center on sustainable development and addresses
several relevant issues, including land use planning, transportation, municipal energy, green building, and
sustainable businesses. Brownfield redevelopment is considered a key strategy for implementing
sustainable development successfully, and the center provides a number of resources. The web site —
www.sustainable.doe.gov — also provides a bibliography.
Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs (BTS). BTS works with
government, industry, and communities to integrate energy technologies and practices to make buildings
more efficient and communities more livable. The resources available through BTS can help ensure that
brownfield cleanup is connected to energy efficiency and sustainable redevelopment. The BTS web site
is — www.eren.doe.gov.
Office of Environmental Management. DOE conducts research, development, and engineering
on assessment and remediation of contaminated sites. Its Office of Environmental Management (EM)
pays for cleanup of DOE's contaminated sites. EM also supports funding for R&D on cleanup and
assessment technologies; although these technologies are developed for and/or tested on DOE's own
contaminated sites, many have broader applicability.
BROWNFIELDS PARTNERSHIP ROLE
DOE can support brownfield reuse by providing technical assistance in the field of energy use
and environmental remediation, sharing lessons learned about cleanup and long-term stewardship efforts,
and funding for relevant research and development. The energy policy developed by the Bush
Administration's acknowledges this role by specifically proposing to link energy with brownfields,
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 25 September 2004
-------
recommending that: "...the President direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to work with local and state governments to promote the use of well-designed CHP and other
clean power generation at brownfield sites, consistent with the local communities' interests. EPA will
also work to clarify liability issues if they are raised at a particular site."
DOE also commits to:
• Promoting the construction of buildings that incorporate energy efficient, renewable energy and
distributed energy technologies at brownfields;
• Developing regional relationships with federal and state partners to address site or brownfields
issues;
• Providing technical assistance in the field of environmental cleanup and stabilization to
brownfields/ revitalization efforts;
• Funding related environmental remediation science and technology development;
• Linking Brownfields Pilot activities with DOE's cleanup and remediation activities to create
more attractive and sustainable communities.
Contacts
Melinda Downing
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Intergovernmental and Public Accountability
EM-11
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Room1F087
Washington, DC 20585
(202) 586-7703
Fax: (202) 586-0293
melinda.downing@em.doe.gov
Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development
http://www.sustainable.doe.gov
Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs
http: //www. eren. do e .gov/buildings
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 26 September 2004
-------
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides grants to cleanup and redevelop brownfield sites while preventing future health hazards
- targeted to local health departments in showcase communities
Q Studies and provides training in environmental health impacts on minority communities -
targeted to academic institutions and various brownfield community stakeholders
Q Offers assessment of environmental sampling data - targeted to all brownfield community
stakeholders
THINK AsouT,,,using ATSDR review to enhance community outreach efforts at brownfield
sites...corroborate community outreach informational materials
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), created by the 1980
Superfund legislation and operating within the Department of Health and Human Services, seeks to
prevent human exposure to hazardous substances in the environment. Its public health functions include:
assessments of sites, the analysis and reporting of collected assessment data, education and training
concerning hazardous substances, epidemiological surveillance studies, and the mitigation of releases of
hazardous substances into the environment.
ATSDR established the Office of Urban Affairs (OUA) to primarily handle its brownfield
activities. This office also focuses on environmental justice and minority health concerns.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
The agency does not make specific brownfield funding awards. Instead, the extent of AT SDR s
involvement at an individual site will depend on the health issues in question, the ability of ATSDR's
state and local health department partners to adequately address those issues, and ATSDR resource
capabilities.
Minority Health Initiative. ATSDR in 1987 established a Minority Health Initiative to focus
on the demographic characteristics, health perspectives, health communication patterns, and health
professional and community health education needs of disadvantaged communities and persons of color.
This effort has evolved into the agency's Minority Health/Environmental Justice Program, which can help
develop and execute environmental risk communication and education programs to mitigate and prevent
adverse health effects from hazardous substances in disadvantaged communities and those with people of
color
Review and Assess Environmental Sampling Data. ATSDR can review and assess
environmental sampling data and other site-related information in order to determine if past, current, or
future exposure to hazardous substances might have public health consequences. In essence, ATSDR or
state health departments can provide an independent opinion on site conditions and offer
recommendations on safe redevelopment. In those rare cases where it appears that significant exposure
to hazardous chemicals is occurring or did occur, ATSDR may conduct an investigation to characterize
the public health significance of site-related exposures.
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 27 September 2004
-------
Health-Related Information Sharing. ATSDR can provide health-related information on
specific hazardous substances; coordinate a response to a real or perceived elevated incidence of disease
near a site; and help individual workers or community members find experienced, private medical
attention for significant hazardous substance exposure.
Contacts
Steven L. Jones
Senior Regional Representative
ATSDR Liaison Officer to EPA Headquarters
Office of Regional Operations
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
MC5204G
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 603-8729
sxj6@cdc.gov
Office of Urban Affairs: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/OUA/
Francisco A. Tomei Torres, Ph.D.
Minority Health Program Specialist
Health Disparities Unit
NCEH/ATSDR
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Rd., NE, , MS-E29
Atlanta, GA. 30329-4018
404 498 0664
888 422 8737, x0664
Fax: 404 498 0093
francisco.tomeitorres@cdc.hhs.gov
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 28 September 2004
-------
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/wetp/program/brownfields.htm
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Conducts pilot programs to recruit minority workers to the environmental field under the
Minority Worker Training Program and the Brownfields Minority Worker Training Programs-
currently targeted to six academic institutions and training consortia - (Xavier University of
Louisiana, Laborers-AGC Education and Training Fund, Center to Protect Workers Rights,
National Puerto Rican Forum, and the New Jersey/New York Consortium)
Q Provides grants to organizations to develop model occupational safety and health training for
workers who perform dangerous jobs in hazardous waste management and remediation - targeted
to non-profit organizations with an established track record of conducting health and safety
training (currently, 18 grantees)
Q Conducts research and outreach on environmental hazards and cleanup technologies targeting
Superfund sites and other sites such as brownfields
Q Provides grants to for-profit companies under the Advanced Training Technology (ATT)
program - targeted to companies employing HAZMAT workers, emergency responders, and
small business participants in the SBIR and STTR programs
THINK ABOU rebuilding partnerships to strengthen training programs to increase cleanup service
provider options in areas with numerous brownfield sites
Among other things, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) studies
and addresses the environmental causes of human health concerns, and tries to link its basic research,
community outreach, and worker-training programs to EPA's brownfields assessment program.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
Basic Research. One of NIEHS's research and outreach efforts focuses on environmental
hazards specific to poor and minority communities. The agency supports a series of programs that
translate environmental health research findings into information or tools that can be used by public
health professionals and the public to support community involvement in identifying and investigating
health concerns, including those involving contaminated sites
Hazardous Waste Worker Training. The NIEHS worker education and training program has
established an effective national framework to develop and provide comprehensive training that is
needed to address Superfund cleanups, chemical emergency responses, RCRA corrective actions, and
environmental restoration in urban communities surrounding brownfield sites. It is able to assess policy,
funding, and training issues of utmost concern to this worker community. Its website —
www.niehs.nih.gov/wetp/grant/summary.htm — acts as an extension of the training program network,
providing information on issues that are important to both workers and trainers who are engaged in
activities related to hazardous substance generation, response, removal, and containment. In fiscal 2003,
$30 million was allocated to continue support efforts to train hazardous waste workers and emergency
responders.
Minority Worker Training Program. NIEHS training efforts currently include the Minority
Worker Training Program (MWTP), which offers a series of national pilot programs to recruit minority
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 29 September 2004
-------
workers into the environmental field. The program targets young people who live in areas where they
may be at risk of exposure to contaminated properties so that they can be both informed about the
environmental issues in the area as well as compete for jobs that are created when sites are cleaned up
and redeveloped. The MWTP works with academic institutions, with a particular focus on historically
black colleges and universities, as well as public schools and community-based organizations located in
or nearby impacted areas (see list above). MTWP has received more than $3 million over the past two
years to support its efforts.
Brownfields Minority Worker Training Program. The BMWTP, which began in 1998,
broadens the MWT program to provide comprehensive training to disadvantaged residents and to foster
economic and environmental restoration to communities impacted by brownfields. Funding for this
program is provided by interagency agreement with the US EPA, and totaled $2.2 million for the year
ending August 31, 2004. The BMWTP has reached some 1,860 trainees since it began, and has enjoyed
a 66 percent successful employment rate over the past five years. For further information, see the web
site - www.niehs.nih.gov/wetp/program/minority.htm.
Superfund Worker Training Grants Program. Originally authorized as part of the Superfund
program, these training grants provide model occupational safety and health training for workers and
their supervisors who perform dangerous jobs in the nation's hazardous waste management and
remediation programs. The program enhances rather than replaces private-sector training responsibility
by demonstrating new and cost-effective training techniques and materials. There are 18 primary
grantees, and NIEHS reports that more than 1 million people across the country have received training.
Advanced Technology Training Program. ATT focuses on the development of E-Learning
products for health and safety training needed by HAZMAT workers, emergency responders; it directs its
resources towards small business participants in the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and
Small Business Technology Transfer Research (STTR) programs.
BROWNFIELD PARTNERSHIP ROLE
NIEHS contributes biomedical, public health, environmental research, and training programs for
those engaged in environmental efforts such as cleanup and remediation and provides outreach and
education to the public and other organizations across the country regarding these issues. To this end,
the agency commits to continuing to administer and fund the BMWTP program in collaboration with
EPA's Brownfields Office to increase workforce development opportunities for residents surrounding
brownfields communities; and linking other program grantees with brownfields communities to address
other worker-training needs and issues.
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 30 September 2004
-------
Contacts
Sharon D. Beard
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
POBoxl2233,MDEC-25
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2233
(919)541-1863
Fax:(919)541-0462
beard 1 @niehs.nih. gov
Joseph (Chip) Hughes, Jr.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS)
MD EC-25
Worker Education and Training Program
79 TW Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2233
(919)541-0217
Fax:(919)541-0462
hughes3 @niehs .nih.gov
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 31 September 2004
-------
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
http://www.hud.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides block grants and competitive awards for revitalizing entitlement communities - targeted
to state and local governments
Q Offers federally-guaranteed loans for large economic development and revitalization projects,
typically in entitlement communities - targeted to state and local governments
Q Provides priority status for certain federal programs and grants for HUD-designated
Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Communities - targeted to 80 local governments with
low-income or distressed areas
Q Provides options for meeting safe and affordable housing needs in developed areas
THINK AsouT,,,using HUD resources to meet virtually any brownfield need — site acquisition,
assessment, cleanup, demolition, clearance, construction, or structural rehabilitation...addressing
residential lead paint problems
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has six brownfield-applicable
HUD programs (listed below) that can provide resources for the renewal of economically distressed
areas, including brownfield sites. HUD takes the position that brownfields provide potential
opportunities for neighborhood revitalization and economic redevelopment, consistent with its own
mission.
• Community Development Block Grant Program;
• Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program;
• Brownfield Economic Development Initiative (and the related Economic Development
Initiative);
• HOME Investment Partnership Program;
• Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities Initiative; and
• Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
Community Development Block Grant Program. Since its enactment in 1974, the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program has provided annual grants to states and eligible
metropolitan cities and urban counties ("entitlement communities") for housing, community
improvement, and economic development activities. Communities use CDBG funds to "revitalize
neighborhoods, expand affordable housing and economic opportunities, and/or improve community
facilities and services." The program increasingly has driven economic development activities, including
brownfield redevelopment, that have the potential to stimulate job and business opportunities in blighted
communities.
HUD distributes 70 percent of the CDBG formula appropriations to more than 1,100 entitlement
communities, and the remaining 30 percent of the formula funds go to the states for distribution to
non-entitlement small cities and counties. Entitlement communities administer their own programs and
have broad discretion in the selection of activities that they carry out each year. States have broad
discretion in the method of distribution of funds to non-entitlement units of general local government. In
Hawaii and U.S. territories, HUD makes grants directly to non-entitlement counties.
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 32 September 2004
-------
CDBG recipients may choose to implement activities themselves directly, through contracts, or
they may use sub-recipients (eligible public or non-profit organizations) to carry out activities on their
behalf. CDBG recipients may also directly assist for-profit businesses for economic development project
and may also carry out brownfield redevelopment projects. The CDBG funded activity, in addition to
being eligible must also meet one of the program's three objectives: a) benefit low- and moderate-income
persons b) prevent or eliminate slums or blight; or c) meet other urgent community development needs.
For fiscal 2004, Congress appropriated about $4.4 billion for the CDBG program.
Over the past five years, nearly 100 cities and towns of all size have used CDBG resources
directly for brownfield purposes, in various ways including:
• preparing plans for redevelopment or revitalization of brownfield sites;
• acquiring sites;
• carrying out environmental site assessment;
• clearing sites, and demolishing and removing buildings;
• rehabilitating buildings;
• removing or cleaning up contamination from sites or structures; and
• carrying out the redevelopment, including constructing real estate improvements.
Cities like Provo Utah have used CDBG to capitalize local RLFs for brownfield purposes. The
small town of Newberg, Oregon, used $280,000 through its state CDBG program for cleanup and site
clearance at an abandoned auto dealership downtown, which is being converted into convert to a new
retail center. Dallas has used CDBG to pay for cleanup at sites being used for housing. And Wisconsin
has been reserving $2.5 million of its state CDBG allocation for small cities to provide them with
resources to pay for site assessments and cleanups.
One of CDBG's real values as a program is that it can help address smaller neighborhood based
projects as well as larger projects, where initial resource injections are needed to help with site cleanup
and related preparation. Also, HUD funding can be used in ways that EPA support cannot, for cleanup of
all types of contaminants as well as necessary redevelopment activities like demolition. In this way, it
can be a nice complement.
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program. CDBG recipients are eligible for funding through the
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program. Section 108 typically provides federally guaranteed loans for
large economic development and revitalization projects, housing, and public infrastructure projects.
CDBG entitlement recipients may borrow an amount equal to five times the recipients' latest CDBG
entitlement grant. Small cities must work through their states, who determine the maximum amounts
their recipients may borrow, up to a statewide maximum of five times the state's latest CDBG allocation.
CDBG recipients must provide security of the Section 108 guaranteed loan (often the assets of the
assisted project) and are required to pledge their current and future CDBG grants. The level of certainty
and security provided by the Section 108 loan guarantee program will help stimulate private development
and investment within the targeted communities.
Section 108 guaranteed loans must be used for projects that further the objectives of the CDBG
program, including the CDBG national objectives. Section 108 projects may also be used to acquire and
redevelop brownfield sites. Since 1978, Section 108 has provided approximately $6.2 billion in loan
guarantee authority for over 1,400 projects. In recent years, many Section 108 supported projects have
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 33 September 2004
-------
involved brownfield properties. In fiscal 2004, Congress provided $275 million in new guarantee
authority.
Economic Development Initiative (EDI). In 1994, HUD launched the Economic Development
Initiative (EDI) to provide additional security to recipients of Section 108 guaranteed loans, as well as
additional financial assistance for development projects that these loans finance. EDI funds spur
economic development and revitalization by making projects more feasible and financially secure.
Originally, cities competed for EDI grants; in recent years, though all EDI funding decisions have been
determined through congressional earmarks.
Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI). In 1998, HUD developed the
Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant program as part of the overall EDI. BEDI
grants target brownfield redevelopment activities and are intended to simulate private and public
investments within local communities. They were designed to provide additional security to recipients of
Section 108 guaranteed loans — which must be used in tandem with BEDI grants - as well as additional
financial assistance for development projects that these loans finance. BEDI addresses Section 108
recipient concerns that CDBG funding will be at risk in the event of default on Section 108 loans used
for brownfield purposes.
Specifically, BEDI funds may be used to pay a portion of project costs, thereby reducing overall
financial liability, or they may be used as a loan loss reserve or debt reserve. BEDI has had particular
success in increasing access to capital for small businesses and entrepreneurs. In 2003, the program
awarded $29.1 million in grants and the requisite Section 108 participation guaranteed another $117
million in loans. BEDI grants total $153 million since 1998, along with a total of $727 million in Section
108-guaranteed loans. The BEDI program received $25 million in appropriated funds in FY 2004.
HOME Investment Partnerships Program. Established in 1990 under the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act, the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) is the largest
federal block grant to create affordable housing. The HOME program provides annual grants to states
and eligible cities and urban counties (all termed participating jurisdictions). Participating jurisdictions
may use their grant funds to undertake the following: acquire property, construct new housing for rent or
ownership, rehabilitate rental or owner-occupied units, provide home purchase or rehabilitation financing
assistance, and assist low-income renters through tenant-based rental assistance or payment of security
deposits.
Participating jurisdictions are required to contribute or match 25 cents for each dollar of HOME
funds spent on affordable housing. HOME fosters the growth and capacity of local nonprofits by
requiring that each participating jurisdiction sets aside 15 percent of its allocation to fund housing that
will be owned, developed or sponsored by entities designated as community housing development
organizations (CHDOs).
HUD directly distributes HOME funds to 594 state and local jurisdiction and four insular areas.
States have funded state recipients, sub-recipients, CHDOs, for profit and other nonprofit program
participants. Since the program's inception, communities have committed $8.8 billion of HOME funds to
develop more than 600,000 units of affordable housing. HOME funds may be used for brownfield
redevelopment projects after the site has been cleaned of contamination.
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 34 September 2004
-------
Office of Community Renewal (RC/EZ/EC). This office oversees the Renewal
Community/Enterprise Zone/Enterprise Community (RC/EZ/EC) Initiatives, which take an innovative
approach to revitalization. By offering tax incentives and flexible funding, these efforts bring
communities together through a strategic planning process to attract the investment necessary for
sustainable economic and sustainable community development. In 1994, HUD designated 65 cities as
Enterprise Communities (ECs) and 6 cities as Empowerment Zones (EZs), followed by 15 Round II EZs
in 1998. At the end of 2001, HUD designated an additional 12 rural and 28 urban RCs and eight new
urban Empowerment Zones. The US Department of Agriculture designated 10 rural Empowerment
Zones and 35 rural Enterprise Communities.
EZ/ECs have had access to over $5 billion in tax incentives. These tax incentives include wage
tax credits for employers, tax relief for business equipment purchases, tax-exempt bond financing for
business property, tax incentives for brownfield cleanup and redevelopment, Qualified Zone Academy
Bonds and some capital gains exclusions. RCs are eligible for more than $5 billion in tax incentives.
RCs qualify for many of the EZ/EC incentives and also are eligible for a special commercial
revitalization deduction and zero percent capital gains rate on the sale or transfer of assets.
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program. HUD's lead-based paint program was
established to reduce young children's exposure to lead paint hazards in their homes. To accomplish this,
HUD provides states and local governments with grants, ranging from $1 million to $2.5 million, to abate
lead paint hazards in privately-owned, low-income owner owned, and rental housing. Eligible activities
include inspections and risk assessments, and development of community awareness or education
programs on lead hazards and their control. Since 1993, HUD has awarded nearly $700 million to more
than 100 municipalities and states.
BROWNFIELD PARTNERSHIP ROLE
HUD's housing, economic, and community development programs can all work to support
diverse aspects of brownfields redevelopment. In particular, the agency has committed to:
• linking tax incentives available through empowerment zones and enterprise communities to
brownfield opportunities;
• working to enhance BEDI access by small cities by seeking legislation that would de-link BEDI from
Section 108 and allow HUD to award BEDI funds as direct grants; and
• providing timely and useful information about successful brownfield redevelopment efforts through
the development of new data systems that gather and disseminate such information, and through the
inclusion of brownfields redevelopment information in the agency's communication and educational
material and activities.
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 35 September 2004
-------
Contacts
RC/EZ/EC Programs
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/economicdevelopment/programs/rc/index.cfm
http://www.hud.gov/er
Pamela Glekas Spring
Director, Office of Community Renewal
Community Planning and Development
451 7th Street SW, Room 7130
Washington, DC 20410
(800) 998-9999 - Community Connections Hotline
(202) 708-6339 (phone)
(202) 401-7615 (fax)
Community Development Block Grant Program for States, Small Cities, and Insular Areas
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/index.cfm
Steve Johnson
Director
State and Small Cities Division
State CDBG Program
Office of Block Grant Assistance in
Office of Community Planning and Development
451 7th Street SW
Washington, DC 20410
(202) 708-1322
steveJohnson@HUD.gov
Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Communities Program
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/entitlement/index.cfm
Sue Miller
Director
Entitlement Communities Division
Office of Block Grant Assistance in
Office of Community Planning and Development
451 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20410
(202)708-1577
sue_miller@HUD. gov
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 36 September 2004
-------
Contacts (continued)
HOME Investment Partnerships Program
www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/index.cfm
Mary Kolesar
Director
Office of Affordable Housing Programs
451 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20410
(202) 708-2684
mary_kolesar@hud.gov
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program & Economic Development Initiative
http://www.hud.gov/progdesc/cdbg-108.cfm BAD LINK
http://www.hud.gov/cpd/econdev/108/facts.html NO 108 INFO
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/108/index.cfm
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/economicdevelopment/programs/edi/index.cfm
Paul Webster
Director
Financial Management and Section 108 Division
Office of Block Grant Assistance in
HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development
451 7th Street SW, Room 7180
Washington, DC 20410
(202)708-1871
BEDI/EDI: Bill Seedyke (202) 708-3484 extension 4445
Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI)
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/economicdevelopment/programs/bedi/index.cfm
HUD Brownfield Hotline
1-800-998-9999
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 37 September 2004
-------
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
http://www.nps.gov
Brownfield Links
Q Provides technical assistance for planning, assessment, and conservation in urban areas - targeted to
state and local governments and community-based organizations
Q Assists in acquisition of surplus federal lands - targeted to state and local governments
Q Offers technical assistance for community revitalization - targeted to Brownfield Showcase
Communities
THINK ABOUT...enhancing brownfield projects with parks and open space amenities
Since its inception in 1916, the National Park Service (NPS) has provided planning and technical
assistance for community-based conservation efforts. Besides preserving national parks, NPS cooperates
with governmental and community-based organization partners to extend the benefits of natural and
cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation..
In July 1996, the Department of Interior, through its Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance
Program (Rivers & Trails), signed a memorandum of understanding with EPA to work cooperatively on
initiatives promoting sustainable community-based environmental conservation and brownfield
redevelopment.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
Technical Assistance Through the Rivers & Trails Program. The Rivers & Trails Program
supports state and local governments and community organizations in conservation efforts by providing
river, trail, and greenway planning; resource assessment; and conservation workshops and consultations.
Much of Rivers & Trails assistance is targeted to urban areas for projects that include or affect
underutilized contaminated properties. As such, the program can complement brownfield redevelopment
efforts.
Four Rivers & Trails project areas to support conservation efforts (urban area projects, trails and
greenway projects, rails-trails projects, and river projects) may be used concurrently with redevelopment
efforts. An example of River & Trails involvement is its agreement with EPA to support the
development of Groundworks USA, a network of locally-organized community corporations for the
environment that provide cost-effective project development services to improve their community
environment, economy and quality of life through local action focused on improving parks and open
spaces and reclaiming derelict vacant lots and brownfields for community benefit, such as housing,
business and greenspace.
Technical Assistance Through the Federal Lands-to-Parks Program. Through the Federal
Lands-to-Parks Program, the NPS helps states and local governments acquire, at no cost, surplus federal
lands (including excess lands from decommissioned military bases). NPS identifies which lands have
high natural, historic, or recreational values, and then assists communities gain title to the lands. Land or
buildings obtained through this program must be open to the public and used exclusively for parks and
recreational purposes.
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 38 September 2004
-------
BROWNFIELD PARTNERSHIP ROLE
The Department of Interior (DOI), home to the NFS and other agencies, is supporting
brownfields partnerships activities by various bureaus. As part of this effort, DOI commits to:
• Establishing a Brownfields Redevelopment Working Group among DOI bureaus and offices to
improve internal Departmental coordination and to enhance the DOI's capacity to partner with EPA's
Brownfields Program
• Continuing to support the Groundworks effort; and
• Exploring the possibility of assisting EPA with inventorying, characterizing, assessing, and planning
related to brownfield sites, participating in performing targeted site assessments, and establishing a
DOI brownfields web site.
Contacts
Sam Stokes, Chief
National Park Service
Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program
1849 C Street, NW, Org. Code 2220
Washington, D.C. 20240
202-354-6933
sam_stokes@nps.gov
http://www.nps.gov/rtca/
Wendy Ormont
Federal Lands to Parks Program Leader
National Park Service
1849 C Street, N.W. M.S. 2225
Washington, DC 20240
202-354-6915
Fax: 202-371-5197
Wendy_ormont@nps. gov
http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/flp/index.html
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 39 September 2004
-------
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Surface Mining
http://www.osmre.gov
Brownfield Links
Q Provides information on mine site issues and opportunities - targeted to local governments, states,
tribes, quasi-public development organizations, non-profits, and other entities eligible to apply for
EPA brownfield assessment and cleanup grants
Q Offers grant writing training — targeted to entities eligible to apply for grants to support brownfield
redevelopment
THINK AsouT,,,tapping OSM expertise when exploring reuse opportunities for old mining sites and
related facilities...when preparing applications for EPA brownfield program assistance for newly
eligible "mine scarred land" sites
The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) is a small bureau with responsibility, in cooperation with
the states and Indian tribes, for the protection of citizens and the environment during coal mining and
reclamation. OSM also works to reclaim mines abandoned before 1977. OSM is organized around two
principal requirements: regulating active coal mining, and reclaiming abandoned mines. Additionally,
OSM operates programs to: eliminate the environmental and economic impacts of acid mine drainage
from abandoned coal mines; encourage reforestation of reclaimed mine land; develop techniques that can
ensure reclamation of prime farmland soils; and publicly recognize outstanding reclamation by
communicating the experience to others.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
OSM has provided training and support to OSM/VISTA volunteers and helped prepare grant
applications for brownfields projects in coal impacted watersheds. The new federal Brownfields
Revitalization Act recognizes mine-scarred lands as brownfields, further linking and strengthening the
environmental management activities and goals of OSM, EPA, and other federal partners.
BROWNFIELD PARTNERSHIP ROLE
OSM is carrying out its brownfield role by working with EPA to address environmental concerns
on abandoned minelands and within contaminated watersheds. The agency continues to work with
OSM/VISTA Watershed Development Coordinators to provide direct training on brownfields in
Coalfields grant writing and project development.
Contact
T. Allan Comp
Watershed Assistance Team
Office of Surface Mining
Department of the Interior - Room 121
Washington, DC 20240
(202) 208-2836
Fax:(202)219-0239
tcomp@osmre.gov
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 40 September 2004
-------
U.S. Department of Justice
Weed and Seed Program
http ://www.usdoj .gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Brownfields Special Emphasis Initiative gives communities unsuccessful in seeking EPA funding a
"second chance" to carry out initiatives aimed at site preparation and development, and community
outreach and participation - targeted to Weed and Seed program grantees
Q Advise and assist with the use of EPA brownfield funds to clean up meth labs — targeted to all EPA
grantees addressing meth labs
Q Assists in crime prevention and improving the community climate through neighborhood restoration
and crime prevention - targeted to local governments for community use
THINK AsouT,,,plugging key community involvement, reuse planning, cleanup, and project
development financing gaps when other funding sources fall through.^using community outreach
services to address site and neighborhood safety issues that can stigmatize brownfield sites
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) does not have a specific brownfield reuse program, but it
supports for initiatives that encourage redevelopment directly - through its Brownfield Special Emphasis
Initiative - and indirectly, through the Weed and Seed program.
In addition, DOJ's Environmental and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) supports brownfield
activities in two ways. First, one of ENRD's primary responsibilities is to enforce federal civil and
criminal environmental laws. Second, ENRD negotiates innovative settlement approaches that include
the use of supplemental environmental projects, known as SEPs. Under a SEP agreement, violators can
agree to perform projects of direct benefit to the are or community affected by their non-compliance; in a
few instances, this has involved contributions to brownfield cleanup and redevelopment.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
Community Capacity Development Office. In March 2004, DOJ launched the Community
Capacity Development Office (CCDO) in its Office of Justice Programs to assist communities
nationwide in preventing crime, increasing community safety, and revitalizing neighborhoods. The new
office incorporated the Weed and Seed initiative, a community-driven strategic planning process that has
had a positive impact on many communities, as federal and local law enforcement agencies join forces,
share resources, set common goals, partner with community groups, and work together to address
troubled areas in neighborhoods. Weed and Seed's law enforcement and community policing elements
make up the "weed" portion, while the prevention, intervention, treatment, and neighborhood restoration
elements comprise the "seeds." It is the program's seed portion that may indirectly affect redevelopment
by promoting revitalization activities in distressed areas where brownfields are located.
Communities already in the Weed and Seed program that are seeking continued funding are
eligible for funding designated for brownfield activities. The 2004 CCDO Program Guide and
Application Kit: Continuation Sites, explains the interrelationship between a community's Weed and
Seed strategy and EPA's brownfields program. Weed and Seed is committed to helping communities
revitalize brownfields and may provide funding through its Brownfields Special Emphasis Initiative.
Once a Weed and Seed community has unsuccessfully sought funding from existing brownfield
programs, such as those at U.S. EPA, it may apply to use up to $50,000 in Weed and Seed funds to
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 41 September 2004
-------
support brownfield initiative for a site in the designated Weed and Seed area. Examples of how this
funding may be used include:
• education and outreach to inform and involve citizens and businesses;
• building partnerships and outreach among stakeholders;
• community involvement or environmental justice planning;
• reuse planning, assessment, and evaluation;
• renovating existing facilities;
• cleanup or other response activities associated with cleanup;
• fostering local job development and training initiatives; and
• assisting not-for-profit entities in economic development projects.
Weed and Seed funding may not be used to acquire property or for construction that is not
related to eligible cleanup activities.
BROWNFIELDS PARTNERSHIP ROLE
Weed and Seed has been incorporated into local brownfield programs with grants of up to
$50,000 that offer flexible funding for use in brownfields activities at the discretion of sites. DOJ has
also committed to using settlements and assets to assist with brownfields redevelopment, and exploring
how it could assist with the use of brownfields funds to clean up methamphetamine labs, an activity made
eligible for EPA funding under the 2002 Brownfields Revitalization Act.
Contacts
Karen Wardzinski
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 4390
Washington, DC 20044-4390
(202) 514-0474
Fax:(202)514-4231
karen.wardzinski@usdoj.gov
Community Relations Service
http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/index.html
Sharee M. Freeman, Director
Stephen Thorn, Deputy Director
Director, Community Relations Service
U.S. Department of Justice
600 E Street, NW, Suite 6000
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 305-2935
Fax: (202) 305-3009
http ://www.ojp.usdoj .gov/ccdo/funding.htm
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 42 September 2004
-------
U.S. Department of Labor
http://www.doleta.gov
Brownfield Link
Q Offers technical assistance linked to job training and workforce development in brownfield
Showcase Communities - targeted to state and local governments
THINK AsouT,,,using training and workforce development services as a cashflow offset incentive to
companies locating at brownfield sites
While the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) does not have a brownfield initiative, its mission
complements local redevelopment efforts, which require workers who are trained and skilled to handle
environmental cleanup and sustainable redevelopment of brownfield properties.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
Job Training and Technical Assistance. DOL will provide job training expertise and help
coordinate Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs in brownfield communities. Technical assistance
available to brownfield Showcase Communities. State or local governments interested in this support
should contact the department's Employment and Training Administration's (ETA) relevant regional
administrator; contact information can be found at http://www.doleta/regions/regoffices.
BROWNFIELD PARTNERSHIP ROLE
DOL intends to support brownfield efforts through its existing mission to provide job training,
job placement, and other workforce development services. To this end, the agency commits to
encouraging state and local Workforce Investment Boards to consider using WIA training funds for local
brownfields projects. In addition, ETA's Office of Apprenticeship, Employer and Labor Services is
working to develop competency standards and skill set credential certifications that will ensure that
training is institutionalized to meet industry specifications in the brownfields arena.
In August, 2003, DOL issued a training and employment notice to all state workforce agencies
and liaisons on potential collaboration with EPA on brownfield economic development. The notice
focused on anticipated funding for brownfield assessment grantees and worker training grants, for which
Workforce Investment Boards serving areas around brownfield sites were encouraged to apply. The
notice emphasized that: "Through coordination with the local agency in charge of these brownfield sites.
. . Local Workforce Investment Boards and One-Stop Career Centers can help to assure that local
workers are qualified for these jobs when the project begins....Another benefit to this type of
collaboration or partnership," the notice continues, "is that the Local Workforce Investment Board or
One-Stop Career Center is involved with planning officials at the earliest stages of site planning. This
will allow workforce professionals at the local level to be involved in the planning of job readiness needs
for the next use of the site once it has been cleaned up. This will enhance their ability to provide needed
services to the businesses, industries or agencies that will become the next tenants of these properties."
Contact
Maria K. Flynn
202/693-3700
flynn.maria@dol.gov
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 43 September 2004
-------
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Transit Administration
http://www.fta.dot.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides grants for transit capital and maintenance projects - targeted to public transit agencies in
urban and nonurban areas
Q Offers discretionary capital grants for new fixed guideway transit lines, bus-related facilities, and
new buses and rail vehicles - targeted to public transit agencies, primarily in larger metropolitan
areas
Q Funds transportation and land-use planning - targeted to metropolitan planning organizations,
through the states
Q Promotes delivery of safe and effective public and private transportation in non-urban areas -
targeted to non-urban local governments, through the states
THINK ABOUT...enhancing site marketability with transit access...planning for and cleaning up sites
used for transportation purposes...identifying brownfield sites for stations, lots, and other transit
purposes
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides financial and technical assistance to local
public transit agencies. Since most brownfields are located in high-density, urbanized, and industrial
areas where transit is usually a viable transportation option, FTA programs can play a role in local
redevelopment efforts. Connecting the redevelopment site into the regional transit network can expand
its potential uses and improve its marketability.
The Department of Transportation's brownfield policy (April 1998) provides that "states,
localities, and transit agencies are provided the flexibility to participate, where appropriate, in
transportation projects that include the reuse of brownfield sites." The department also declared that
transportation funds may be used to advance brownfield redevelopment activities, provided that the
funded activity is directly related to a transportation project. While the policy does not target financing
toward brownfields, funding for cleanup is available through the federal transit program, as long as the
cleanup is a necessary part of a transit project.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
Urbanized Area Formula Grants. These grants provide capital assistance to transit agencies in
urban areas with populations of 50,000 people or more. The required matching ratio is 80 percent federal
share and 20 percent local share. Congress appropriates roughly $3 billion annually for this program.
Non-Urbanized Area Formula Grants. These grants provide capital and operating assistance
through the states to transit operators in non-urban areas with populations of less than 50,000 people.
Under this program, a state must use a percentage (5-15 percent) of the funds it receives for inter-city bus
service unless the state can certify that its intercity bus needs have been met. Congress appropriates
roughly $200 million annually for this program.
Discretionary Capital Program. This program provides discretionary capital assistance for
construction of new fixed guideway systems, extensions to fixed guideway systems, modernization of
older fixed guideway systems, buses, and bus-related facilities. Congress appropriates roughly $2.5
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 44 September 2004
-------
billion annually for this program of which approximately 40 percent goes to new fixed guideway
projects, 40 percent to modernization of older fixed guideways, and 20 percent to buses and bus
facilities.
Metropolitan Planning Program (Section 5303). These funds are apportioned to each state on
the basis of urban area population. The states pass the funds through to about 350 metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) in urban areas with populations of over 50,000. The supported planning processes
encompass studies of transportation needs and demands, land use, economic, employment and
demographic trends, and the cost effectiveness of alternative services and facilities. These studies
support the development of a long-range, multimodal transportation plan for the metropolitan region and
a short range Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for funding the projects of highest priority in
the plan. To be eligible for FTA funding, a transportation project must be included in the metropolitan
transportation plan and TIP. Congress appropriates about $50 million annually for metropolitan planning
through the FTA program. The metropolitan planning function is also supported financially by the
Federal Highway Administration.
BROWNFIELD PARTNERSHIP ROLE
FTA is considering ways to address brownfields within the context of its transportation mission.
DOT has committed to encouraging communication and information exchange at the regional level
among field staff. To this end, FTA will share best practices and offer technical assistance and training
to MPOs, along with states and local governments. The agency will also expand existing guidance on
state and local transportation agency and MPO consideration of brownfield redevelopment as part of
transportation planning.
Contacts
Carol Braegelmann
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Transit Administration, TPE-30
400 7th Street, SW, Room 9413
Washington, DC 20590
(202)366-1701
Fax: (202) 493-2478
carol.braegelmann@fta.dot.gov
Urbanized Area Formula Grants
http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/legal/factsp 1 .htm
Ken Johnson
Office of Program Management
(202) 366-1659
Non-Urbanized Area Formula Grants
http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/legal/factsp3.htm
Lorna Wilson
Office of Program Management
(202) 366-0893
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 45 September 2004
-------
Contacts (continued)
Discretionary Capital Program (Section 5309)
http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/circ9300/9300.html
Joyce Larkins
Office of Resource Management and State Programs
(202) 366-1660
Metropolitan Planning Program (Section 5303)
Charles Goodman
Office of Planning and Environment
(202) 366-1944
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 46 September 2004
-------
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
http: //www.f hwa. dot. gov
Brownfield Links
Q Provides funds that can be used to support eligible roadway projects related to brownfield
redevelopment - targeted to state and local governments and metropolitan planning organizations
Q Highway funds can be used for transit projects that reduce congestion - targeted to state governments
Q Transportation enhancement programs for various activities, ranging from bike ways to acquisition of
scenic easements - targeted to state and local governments
Q Funds transportation projects that reduce air emissions - targeted to state and local governments and
metropolitan planning organizations
THINK AsouT,,,using FHWA resources to cover some cleanup,planning and/or development costs,
freeing up resources for other purposes...reconflguring or modernizing roads or other transportation
infrastructure to make them more complementary to site reuse opportunities...or to provide
transportation related access or amenities that enhance site value
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) helps fund the construction of Interstate highways
and other roads. Typical projects financed under the Federal-Aid Highway Program include, road
widening and reconstruction; new construction of roads and transportation centers, intermodal facilities
and recreational trails; access improvements; bridge replacement or rehabilitation; and bicycle/pedestrian
facilities.
DOT's brownfield policy (April 1998) provides that "states, localities, and transit agencies are
provided the flexibility to participate where appropriate, in transportation projects that include the reuse
of brownfield sites." The department also declared that transportation funds might be used to advance
brownfield redevelopment activities, provided that the funded activity is directly related to a
transportation project. While the new policy does not specifically target financing toward brownfields,
funding for cleanups is available through FHWA programs, as long as the cleanup is a necessary part of
an approved transportation project.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program (TCSP). Section
1221 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) established the Transportation and
Community and System Preservation Pilot Program (TCSP). TCSP provides funding that "can be used to
examine transportation strategies that relate to brownfields redevelopment, such as planning access to
redeveloped brownfield sites, upgrading existing urban transportation systems, and connecting local
community members to new brownfield-related jobs." Recent projects include preparation of intermodal
freight infrastructure to support brownfield redevelopment in northern New Jersey, and transportation
and land use planning for the redevelopment of a former tooling and machining site in Dayton, Ohio.
States, local governments, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and tribal governments
are eligible for TCSP grants. The program is authorized at $120 million annually, but in recent years,
Congress has earmarked all funding to specific projects. TCSP funding supports projects that improve
the efficiency of the transportation system; reduce environmental impacts of transportation; reduce the
need for costly future public infrastructure investments; ensure efficient access to jobs, services and
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 47 September 2004
-------
centers of trade, and examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector
development patterns which achieve these goals.
Surface Transportation Program. FHWA funds may be used either for highway or transit at
the discretion of state and local officials. Highway funds also may be used for transit projects that reduce
congestion and improve air quality. FHWA allocates STP funds to states through a
legislatively-determined formula.
Transportation Planning. FHWA helps metropolitan planning organizations develop
long-range transportation plans that consider changes in future population and traffic patterns, as well as
predict the economic and infrastructure changes needed to support these changes.
Transportation Enhancement Transportation enhancement efforts support facilities for
pedestrians and bicycles, historic rehabilitation and preservation, landscaping, archeological planning
and research, control and removal of outdoor advertising, acquisition of scenic easements and sites, and
mitigation of water pollution from highway runoff.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). Through CMAQ,
FHWA funds eligible transportation projects, giving preference to programs with documented emission
reductions from a transportation control measure.
BROWNFIELD PARTNERSHIP ROLE
FHWA is exploring ways to address brownfields within the context of its highway transportation
mission. DOT has committed to encouraging communication and information exchange at the regional
level among field staff, and partnership links among transportation agencies and environmental, state,
local, and private sector partners involved in brownfield redevelopment.
Contacts
Constance Hill
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Natural Environment (HEPN)
400 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590
(804) 775-3378
Fax: (804) 775-3356
connie.hill@fhwa.dot.gov
Fred Bank
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Natural Environment (HEPN)
400 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590
(202) 366-5004
(202) 366-3409
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 48 September 2004
-------
Program Contacts
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Planning (HEPP)
400 7th St SW
Washington DC 20590
Phone: 202-366-0106
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
http ://www. fhwa. dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs.htm
Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/index.html
Transportation Enhancements
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/te/index.html
Transportation Planning
http ://www. fhwa. dot.gov/planning/index.htm
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 49 September 2004
-------
U.S. Department of Treasury
Oversight of various tax incentives
http://www.ustreas.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Offers tax incentives to leverage private investment in brownfield cleanup and redevelopment -
targeted to private sector entities
Q Offers tax incentives to attract private investment in activities like building rehabilitation, that could
play a key role in a brownfield strategy — targeted to private sector entities
Q Provides financing tools and incentives to stimulate private-sector investment in blighted
communities - targeted to private sector entities
Q Provides guidance and facilitates partnerships for community reinvestment - targeted to federally
chartered commercial banks; bank examiners; and private sector entities
THINK ABOUT...promoting the cashflow advantages of tax incentives...promoting the financial and
public relations advantages of participating in brownfield redevelopment to lenders...tapping into
programs to expand capital access for small businesses that could locate at a brownfield site
The Department of the Treasury became more active on redevelopment issues with the 1997
passage of a brownfield tax incentive. It joined a number of incentives in place that can help stimulate
investment by the private sector in communities with brownfields.
Currently, several tax code-based incentives monitored and overseen by Treasury can have an
important impact on brownfield cleanup and reuse efforts. These include:
• brownfields expensing tax incentive;
• rehabilitation tax credits;
• industrial development bonds;
• low-income housing tax credits;
• Community Development Financial Institution Fund (CDFI); and the
• New Markets Tax Credit program;
In addition, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has established a Community
Development Division, which advises the Comptroller on various community development activities that
banks can participate in and influence. This Division can be a useful initial contact for parties interesting
in exploring private brownfield financing strategies.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
Brownfields Tax Incentive. Starting on January 1, 1998, taxpayers became able to fully deduct
environmental cleanup costs in the year they incurred them, rather than having to capitalize them over
time. The brownfield tax expensing incentive. This is the only federal financing tool directly and solely
targeted to private owners of contaminated sites. Specifically, the authorizing statute provides that "a
taxpayer may elect to treat any qualified environmental remediation expenditure which is paid or
incurred by the taxpayer as an expense which is not chargeable to capital account. Any expenditure
which is so treated shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year in which it is paid or incurred." In
other words, taxpayers can deduct environmental cleanup costs
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 50 September 2004
-------
Site owners need to get sign-off from their state that they do in fact have a brownfield, but
participation in the voluntary cleanup program is enough to satisfy that requirement, and there are other
ways to satisfy it as well. Costs eligible for expensing include site assessment and cleanup costs,
monitoring costs, operations and maintenance costs, and state program oversight fees.
This incentive expired on December 31,2003. However, several legislative proposals have been
advanced to both extend the provision, to at least the end of 2005, and broaden its applicability to any
brownfield site - including petroleum contaminated properties.
Rehabilitation Tax Credits. Rehabilitation tax credits were adopted by Congress to discourage
the unnecessary demolition of sound older buildings and to slow the loss or relocation of businesses from
older urban areas. Across the country, the credits have helped attract redevelopment capital into all types
of projects in blighted and ignored areas not ordinarily considered for investment. This incentive offers
to investors a credit against their total income, which is taken for the year in which the renovated
building is put into service. Rehabilitation of income producing certified historic structures qualifies for
a credit equal to 20 percent of the costs of the work; rehabilitation work on non-historic structures built
before 1936 qualifies for 10 percent. Most reconstruction work is eligible for the credit.
The rehabilitation tax credit is well-suited for packaging with other economic development grant
and loan programs; it can be an ideal complement to a brownfield redevelopment initiative in an older
industrial area. According to data compiled by the National Park Service, about half of all projects
claiming rehabilitation incentives also tied other public-development programs into their financing
packages. Property tax abatements and low-interest loans are the most commonly used companion
incentives
Industrial Development Bonds. Tax-exempt, private activity industrial development bonds
(IDBs) are issued by a range of cities, public agencies, development authorities, and similar entities in
virtually every state. The Treasury Department defines a state-wide volume cap on bond issuances each
year — the greater of $50 per capita or $200 million. Companies and local jurisdictions favor IDBs as a
source of financing since the interest they bear is not taxable, which reduces the yield that investors
demand, which lowers a project's cost of capital. They are commonly used as part of an area-wide
revitalization strategy.
Since IDBs are targeted to manufacturing projects, they can play an important part in certain
types of site reuse projects or a business retention strategy aimed at existing industrial areas. The issuing
authority process allows jurisdictions to channel more affordable investment capital, if they so choose, to
certain locations and for specific types of projects. IDE proceeds help private companies acquire
buildings, equipment, and other components needed for an industrial project, and they have been used to
help pay for cleanup as part of site development in a few cases — this is really an emerging use. In legal
parlance, they are "revenue bonds." In other words, the company is responsible for repaying the debt.
These bonds are payable from and secured by the revenues of the projects they finance; if the company
defaults, the bondholders, and not the local taxpayers, absorb the loss.
The popularity of IDBs stems from their versatility as a development finance tool. Issuing
agencies or authorities have numerous options for structuring an IDE; they can be issued for long or short
terms, and can carry a fixed interest rate or a floating one — typically one quarter to one third less than
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 51 September 2004
-------
the prime borrowing rate. From a local development perspective, IDBs have the advantage of giving
small and inexperienced business borrowers access to securities markets.
Low-income housing tax credits. Low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs), created in 1986,
may be used as part of a project financing package if affordable rental housing is included as part of a
community's revitalization strategy. These credits are intended to ensure an attractive minimum rate of
return on this type of housing investment. LIHTC authority is given to each state on a per capita formula,
and the state can issues LIHTC tax-exempt bonds up that level to attract investment capital into this type
of housing. They have been successfully used in many states as part of mixed-income housing
developments, sometimes as infill projects.
Community Development Financial Institution Fund (CDFI). The Treasury's CDFI Fund can
enhance brownfield redevelopment activities. Intended to "promote economic revitalization and
development in distressed urban and rural communities throughout the United States," the fund increases
accessibility to investment capital by providing the private sector with leverage capability and strategic
investments. CDFI is designed to stimulate private-sector investment in the nation's blighted
communities, many of which include brownfield properties. The CDFI mission is carried out through
three programs:
• The CDFI basic program promotes economic and community revitalization by providing an array of
innovative financing tools to private-sector financial institutions that will help strengthen lending
capabilities. Since 1996, the CDFI Fund has made more than $200 million available to institutions;
• The Band Enterprise Award program provides financial incentives to traditional financial
institutions, such as regulated banks and thrifts. These incentives are intended to encourage
investment in and lending to community redevelopment projects in blighted communities. The BEA
Program has awarded $30 million to these institutions; and
• The Presidential Awards for Excellence in Microenterprise Development encourages innovative
advancements in microenterprise development in depressed communities by presenting non-monetary
awards in recognition of the best practices in the field.
New Markets Tax Credit Program. The goal of the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC)
program is to stimulate $15 billion worth of private equity investment in distressed areas, to bring new
jobs, physical revitalization, and ownership opportunities to low-income communities. The NMTC
program permits taxpayers to receive a credit against federal income taxes for making qualified
investments in designated "Community Development Entities" (or CDEs), which in turn must make
investments in businesses in low income communities. The credit to investors totals 39 percent of the
cost of the investment and is claimed over a seven-year period.
The NMTC effort has gotten off to a slow start. To date, more than 1000 organizations have
received CDE status, but less than 100 have received tax credit allocations. Most of these plan to focus
on real estate development and financial counseling; several cited meeting brownfield needs in their
applications.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — Community Development Division. The
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) supervises nearly 3,600 federally-chartered commercial
banks, which account for approximately 60 percent of the assets of the commercial banking system.
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 52 September 2004
-------
OCC has been proactive in providing guidance to these lending institutions on involvement with
brownfields, for example through publications such as its Commercial Real Estate and Construction
Lending Handbook. The Community Development Division advises the Comptroller on policy matters
involving community development activities of national banks, including welfare investment requests,
and it provides bankers with education and guidance on community economic development issues
permissible under the National Bank Act.
OCC also has a community reinvestment and development specialist program that facilitates
partnerships; provides technical assistance for banks and their community partners; and encourages
investment, lending, and services to low- and moderate-income individuals and small businesses. Two
specialists are in each of the OCC's six geographic districts who have experience in affordable housing,
advocacy, community and economic development, small business lending, and bank examination. They
provide training and advice to national banks, communities, and bank examiners regarding best practices,
options for satisfying CRA responsibilities, and expanding access to credit and capital. The Community
Development Division's web site is http://www.occ.treas.gov/cdd/contacts.htm.
BROWNFIELD PARTNERSHIP ROLE
Tax incentives are playing a key role in attracting flexible investment capital to meet the varied
needs of brownfield sites. Many of these incentives are well suited for packaging with state and local tax
incentives, as well as grant and loan programs.
Contacts
U.S. Department of Treasury
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Community Development Division
250 E Street, SW
Washington, DC 20219
(202) 874-4940 Fax: (202) 874-5566
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund/New Markets Tax Credits
60113th Street NW, Suite 200 South
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 622-8662
Fax: (202) 622-7754
CDFI
http://www.occ.treas.gov/cdd/cdresourcedir.htm
For information and technical assistance on community development lending and investments, including
the special investment authority provided under "part 24", contact:
Barry Wides, Director, Community Development
Karen Bellesi, Manager, Community Development Investments
William Reeves, Manager, Community Development Lending
Telephone: (202) 874-4930
Fax: (202) 874-5566
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 53 September 2004
-------
Contacts (continued)
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Community Development Division
http://www.occ.treas.gov/cdd/contacts.htm
http://www.occ.treas.gov/cdd/commfoc.htm
For information on historic rehabilitation tax credits, contact the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) in the state where the project is being undertaken, or the National Park Service at:
http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/tax/incentives/index.htm
For information on industrial development bond allocations, contact the state financial officer or state
treasurer's office in the state where the project is being undertaken.
For information on low income housing tax credit allocations, contact the state housing finance agency or
state treasurer's office in the state where the project is being undertaken
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 54 September 2004
-------
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
http ://www.fdic.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Ensures equal access to credit - targeted to all brownfield community stakeholders
Q Promotes public-private partnerships and identifies local credit needs - targeted to local
governments; bankers; community-based organizations; and businesses
Q Sponsors seminars on community reinvestment and fair lending laws - targeted to bankers and
consumers
Q Provides a web site on FDIC-owned, potentially contaminated properties - targeted to all brownfield
community stakeholders
THINK AsouT,,,using FDIC to provide brownfield credibility to prospective lenders,,,linking
prospective developers with potential sites..providing lenders with technical assistance and
information on brownfield financing
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) tries to maintain stability within the nation's
insured depository banking and savings associations. It works with other federal and state regulatory
agencies to identify potential threats to the deposit insurance funds, and it makes information and
analysis available to promote sound financial and economic decision making. Several FDIC initiatives
impact financing for brownfield redevelopment efforts.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
Community Affairs Program. This initiative, created in 1990 to comply with the Community
Reinvestment Act and the fair lending laws by FDIC-supervised institutions, helps to ensure equal access
to credit, works with lenders and the public to revitalize communities, and serves as an intermediary to
further fair lending objectives.
Partnership Promotion and Support Services. The FDIC meets regularly with bankers,
community organizations, small businesses, and local government leaders to promote partnerships among
public and private organizations, to identify local credit needs, and to develop strategies to meet those
needs. In addition, the FDIC sponsors and conducts conferences and seminars to help educate bankers
and consumers about the Community Reinvestment Act and other fair lending laws and regulations.
BROWNFIELD PARTNERSHIP ROLE
FDIC has taken an educational role in its brownfield related efforts, sharing information about
EPA brownfield programs with financial institutions. In particular, those lenders that make loans to
borrowers to finance environmental cleanups or redevelopment on properties located in low- or
moderate-income communities receive positive consideration for those loans in their Community
Reinvestment Act performance evaluations - a little recognized aspect of federal banking regulations.
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 55 September 2004
-------
Contacts
Consumer Affairs Program
http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/affairs/index.html
(800) 934-3342, (202) 942-3100
Community Affairs Program
http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/community/program.html
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 56 September 2004
-------
Federal Housing Finance Board
http://www.fhfb.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Funds community-oriented mortgage lending for targeted economic development - targeted to banks,
for a variety of site users
Q Encourages banks to engage in new types of lending to meet housing and economic development
needs - targeted to banks
Q Subsidizes interest rates and loans to increase the supply of affordable housing - targeted to banks
Q Funds the purchase of taxable and tax-exempt bonds to support redevelopment - targeted to banks
THINK AsouT,,,using FHFB to attract more lenders to specific brownfieldprojects
The Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB), founded as an independent agency in 1989, ensures
the integrity of the Federal Home Loan Bank System and ensures that resources are available for home
financing and commercial and economic development activities. The system is divided into 12 district
banks, which are government-chartered, member-owned corporations. These district banks provide
long-term loans to its member financial institutions, which then advance these loans to individuals or
entities in the community for residential mortgages and economic development activities, including
brownfield redevelopment projects. The district banks provide their members with a variety of loan
programs that address housing and development needs.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
Community Investment Program. This loan program provides funding for housing and
economic development activities in distressed neighborhoods. It has been used by member institutions to
finance brownfield redevelopment projects. The program supports community-oriented mortgage
lending that can be used to target commercial and economic development projects in
economically-disadvantaged neighborhoods that include brownfield sites. Individual Home Loan Banks
provide program funds to member institutions and set loan interest rates. Since 1990, the Federal Home
Loan Banks have advanced more than $1.4 billion for such commercial and economic development
projects. Many recipients use these monies in conjunction with additional funding provided through
other federal agencies, such as the Small Business Administration.
Housing Credit and Economic Development Regulations. The Community Investment Cash
Advance Programs (CICA) and the Federal Home Loan Bank Standby Letters of Credit (LOG) are
regulations intended to address unmet housing credit and economic development needs. Both encourage
banks to engage in new types of lending, including activities that otherwise are available for
consideration under the Brownfields Tax Credit Program. The Federal Housing Finance Board
anticipates the regulations will reduce costs associated with contaminated properties and aid in their
resale.
Cash Investment Advance Programs (CICA). The CICA regulation seeks to attract long-term
financing for economic development in urban and rural areas not presently being addressed. The rule
specifically provides that economic development projects include property eligible for a federal
brownfield tax incentive.
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 57 September 2004
-------
Federal Home Loan Bank Standby Letters of Credit (LOC). The LOG regulation provides
the Federal Home Loan Banks with additional flexibility to use letters of credit for economic
development projects that include brownfield redevelopment.
Affordable Housing Program (AHP). The AHP subsidizes the interest rates for advances
(loans) and provides direct subsidies to member institutions of the Federal Home Loan Bank System
engaged in lending for long-term, very-low, low, and moderate-income, owner-occupied, and affordable
rental housing. The program encourages member institutions to undertake creative efforts that increase
the supply of affordable housing.
Support for Local Financing. The Federal Home Loan Banks purchase qualified taxable
bonds, the proceeds of which can be used for brownfield development in selected communities. The
banks can offer advances to member institutions to buy tax-exempt bonds to fund eligible costs involved
in brownfield reuse projects.
BROWNFIELD PARTNERSHIP ROLE
Federal Home Loan banks provide financing at favorable terms to their financial institution
members for use in housing and community development projects, including those on brownfields.
Contact
Charles McLean
Office of Communications
Federal Housing Finance Board
1777 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 408-2537
Fax:(202)408-2915
mcleanc@fhfb.gov
CICA Programs for affordable housing:
http://www.fhfb.gov/FHLB/FHLBP_housing.htm
CICA Programs for economic development:
http://www.fhfb.gov/FHLB/FHLBP_economic_intro .htm
Federal Home Loan Bank Programs, letters of credit:
http://www.fhfb.gov/fhlb/fhlbp_loc_targeted.htm
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 58 September 2004
-------
General Services Administration
http://www.bri.gsa.gov/brownfields
Environmental Programs Overview:
http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?content!d=12789&contentType=
GSA OVERVIEW
BROWNFIELD LINK
Q Works with local communities to determine how underused or surplus federal properties can support
revitalization - targeted to all brownfield community stakeholders
THINK ABOUT,,, incorporating former federal facilities into larger projects, to take advantage of site
assessment resources
As landlord and real estate agent for the federal government, the General Services
Administration (GSA) understands that property plays an important role in creating livable communities.
Federal property can serve as a catalyst for urban revitalization when reused by localities to provide jobs,
contribute to the local tax base, or preserve greenspace. With thousands of federal properties located
throughout the country, GSA is partnering with communities to carry out a Brownfield Redevelopment
Initiative, which targets underused federal properties that can be redeveloped to maximize local
revitalization opportunities. In addition, GSA works to expedite federal property reuse, using tools such
as early transfer authority, fixed price cleanups, and land use controls.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
Community Involvement. Within each of its brownfields project locations, GSA works with
state and local planners, economic development officials, and community groups to effectively match
underused federal property holdings with local revitalization objectives. Through an exchange of
information, communities become aware of the location of federal land holdings within their localities
and have a better understanding of the process involved in acquiring underutilized federal property. In
turn, GSA, guided by local objectives, is able to focus and prioritize the disposal of underutilized real
property. In 1997, GSA launched the Brownfields Redevelopment Initiative to identify and redeploy
underutilized federal properties.
Partnering. In order to support the revitalization activities of communities, GSA has formed a
National Brownfields Team comprised of key individuals from its regional Property Disposal offices.
With local experience and insight, regional staff have a thorough working knowledge of the underused
federal land holdings in each locality. GSA's regional representatives also understand issues that impact
communities such as economic development, housing, and transportation. In addition, GSA's National
Brownfields Team coordinates with state and federal representatives to ensure that the identification of
underutilized federal properties incorporates the latest state and federal revitalization initiatives. GSA
integrates this information using a geographic information system (GIS) that allows GSA to consider
diverse community revitalization issues, helping to focus its identification and analysis of underutilized
property holdings.
BROWNFIELDS PARTNERSHIP ROLE
GSA reviews and identifies underused federal properties that are potentially available for
brownfields redevelopment. Brownfields transactions are primarily real estate deals - and in the case of
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 59 September 2004
-------
available federal properties, GSA can serve as the "honest broker" in these transactions, bringing the
right resources and people to the table to get the deal done. To carry out this role, GSA will:
• Develop a tool kit to help foster the partnerships necessary to successfully "seal the deal" in a
brownfields transaction;
• Educate potential federal property developers on the federal real property disposal process and to
assist in their efforts to reuse federal brownfields; and
• Coordinate a campaign to educate states and communities engaged in brownfields revitalization
about innovative disposal methods, such as Early Transfer Authority (ETA) and the privatization of
remediation.
Contact
John Q. Martin
General Services Administration
Office of Property Disposal
GSA Building
18th and F Streets NW, Room 4340
Washington, DC 20405
(202) 501-4671
Fax: (202)501-2520
johnq.martin@gsa.gov
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 60 September 2004
-------
Small Business Administration
http://www.sba.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides information and other nonfinancial technical assistance for redevelopment efforts -
targeted to small businesses served via many SBA programs
Q Offers loan guarantees to support small businesses - targeted to small businesses through lending
institutions and certified development corporations
Q Assists in developing management and marketing skills - targeted to small businesses
THINK ABOUT...using loan guarantees to attract capital to small businesses once sites are clean...using
CDCs to help underwrite and finance building expansions or renovations...using informational
resources available to help with loan documentation and packaging.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has offices in every state that provide financing,
training, and counseling for small businesses. To be eligible for assistance, the SBA requires that a small
business be independently owned and operated, not dominant within its field, and meet certain size
standards and other eligibility requirements.
SBA programs do not specifically target brownfields - and in fact SBA policy states that the
agency is not to participate in a project until cleanup and liability relief have been achieved. SBA is very
sensitive about appearing to encourage what might be viewed as less-than-sound banking practices.
However, the agency has stated that its programs may be used by small businesses for projects that affect
redevelopment initiatives, provided that the small business meet SBA criteria for the particular loan
program being pursued and obtain satisfactory protection from environmental risk through
indemnification agreements or other measures.
RESOURCES USEFUL TO BROWNFIELD EFFORTS
Section 7(a) Loan Guarantee Program. This program aims to increase the amount of capital
available to small businesses that would not otherwise be able to obtain financing through the
commercial banking community and non-bank lending institutions. In fiscal 2004, $11 billion in
guaranteed authority was available for general business guarantees through the Section 7(a) program. In
addition, SBA has adopted a "Low Doc" (low documentation) approach to Section 7(a) loan guarantees
to encourage more lenders to handle smaller SBA-backed loans of less than $150,000. The program
features a 2-page application and a rapid response from SBA - often in just a few days.
Section 504 Certified Development Company (CDC) Program. The Section 504 program
helps small businesses finance acquisition of land, buildings, and machinery, as well as construction,
renovation, and expansion of existing facilities. The program is operated through nearly 300
SBA-licensed CDCs nationwide, which perform credit analyses, recommend loan approvals, and close
and service the loans they initiate. The CDCs sell debentures to support up to 40 percent of the project
costs, as a type of second mortgage financing, while private lenders provide at least 50 percent (and take
a first mortgage position). The remaining 10 percent comes either from the facility owners, or through
public sector participation; many communities have used their HUD Community Development Block
Grant funds for this purpose. The typical Section 504-supported loan is about $300,000.
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 61 September 2004
-------
BROWNFIELD PARTNERSHIP ROLE
SBA programs are available and relevant to small businesses in brownfields communities, and
making SBA's District Offices and other resource partners aware of this brownfields partnership is an
important SBA role. To this end, SBA commits to disseminating brownfields related information to
SBA's District Offices and to all SBA technical assistance providers, such as the Small Business
Development Centers, Women's Business Centers, and SCORE, about:
• New Superfund liability exemptions, based on the new Small Business Liability Relief and
Brownfields Revitalization Act (PL 107-118); and
• The benefits of brownfields reuse and EPA brownfields program grant availability.
Contact
Rachel Newman-Karton
Small Business Administration
409 3rd Street, NW
8th Floor
Washington, DC 20416
(202)619-1816
Fax: (202) 205-7727
Rachel.Newman-Karton@sba.gov
Certified Development Company Program
http://www.sba.gov/financing/sbaloan/cdc504.html
7(a) Program
http://www.sba.gov/financing/sbaloan/7a.html
Brownfields Federal Programs Guide 62 September 2004
-------
United States Office of Solid Waste EPA-560-F-04-251
Environmental Protection and Emergency Response September 2004
Agency www.epa.gov/brownfields/
-------
Guide to Federal
Brownfield Programs
Revised by
Charles Bartsch
Senior Policy Analyst, Economic Development/ Brownfield Financing Studies
and
Bridget Dorfman
Research Assistant
Northeast-Midwest Institute
Revised October 2000
-------
Northeast-Midwest Institute
The Northeast-Midwest Institute is a Washington-based, private, non-profit, and non-partisan
research organization dedicated to economic vitality, environmental quality, and regional equity for
Northeast and Midwest states. It fulfills its mission by conducting research and analysis, developing and
advancing innovative policy, providing evaluation of key federal programs, disseminating information,
and highlighting sound economic and environmental technologies and practices.
The Institute is unique among policy centers because of its work with the bipartisan Northeast-
Midwest Congressional and Senate Coalitions, co-chaired by Senators Jim Jeffords (R-VT) and Daniel
Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) and Reps. Bob Franks (R-NJ) and Marty Meehan (D-MA). The Institute also
provides staff support for the Senate and House Great Lakes Task Forces, the Senate and House Task
Forces on Manufacturing, the Upper Mississippi River Task Force, and the Senate Smart Growth Task
Force.
Northeast-Midwest Institute
218 D Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
202/544-5200
202/544-0043 (fax)
http://www.nemw.org
Copyright ©2000 by Northeast-Midwest Institute
ISBN: 1-882061-71-3
This publication was made possible by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Its
findings, however, may not necessarily reflect the agency's view, and no official endorsement should be
inferred.
Reproduction of this report, with the customary credit to the source, is permitted.
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Environmental Protection Agency 2
Brownfields Action Agenda
Demonstration Pilots
Clarification of Liability and Cleanup Issues
Partnerships and Outreach
Workforce Development
Environmental Justice
Financial Assistance
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots
Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Pilots (BCRLF)
Brownfield Job Development and Training Pilots
Clean Air/ Brownfield Partnership Pilots
Sustainable Development Challenge Grants
Targeted Site Assessments
Environmental Education
Solid Waste Management Assistance Grants
Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund
Appalachian Regional Commission 8
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 9
State Urban Forestry Coordinators
Open Space Development and Tree Planting
USDA Urban Resources Partnership
Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration 11
Public Works and Development Facilities Program
Economic Adjustment Program
Planning Program for Economic Development Districts, Indian Tribes, and Redevelopment
Areas; and Planning Program for States and Urban Areas
Defense Economic Conversion
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 14
Funding Through the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program
Technical Assistance Through the Coastal Resource Coordinator Program
Workshops in Showcase Communities
Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers 16
Technical Assistance
Reimbursable Support
Civil Works Funding
Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment 18
Department of Education 19
Department of Energy 20
Office of Environmental Management
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy/ Center of Excellence for Sustainable
Development
Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs (BTS)
-------
Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry . 22
Public Health Department Grants
Minority Health Initiative
Review and Assess Environmental Sampling Data
Health-Related Information Sharing
Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Environmental Health Services 24
Basic Research
Minority Worker Training Program
Superfund Worker Training Grants Program
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Community Services 26
Department of Housing and Urban Development 27
Community Development Block Grant Program
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
Economic Development Initiative (EDI)/ Brownfields EDI (BEDI)
Empowerment Zones (EZ) and Enterprise Communities (EC) Initiative
Department of Interior, National Park Service 30
Technical Assistance Through the RTCA Program
Technical Assistance Through the Federal Lands-to-Parks Program
Financial and Technical Assistance in Brownfield Showcase Cities
Department of Justice 32
Community Relations Service
Weed and Seed Program
Department of Labor 33
Job Training and Technical Assistance
Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration 34
Urbanized Area Formula Grants
Non-Urbanized Area Formula Grants
Discretionary Capital Program
Metropolitan Planning Funds (Section 5303)
Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP)
State Planning and Research Program (Section 5313)
Joint Development
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 37
FTA Transit-Community Initiatives
Transportation and Community and System preservation Pilot Program (TCSP)
Surface Transportation Program
Transportation Planning
Transportation Enhancement
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
Department of Treasury 39
Brownfields Tax Incentive
Community Development Financial Institution Fund (CDFI)
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency - Community Development Division
Department of Veterans Affairs 42
Vocational Rehabilitation & Counseling Program (VRCP)
Partnership Opportunities
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 43
Community Affairs Program
Partnership Promotion and Support Services
Conferences and Seminars
FDIC Properties with Environmental Conditions Web Page
-------
Federal Housing Finance Board 44
Community Investment Program
Housing Credit and Economic Development Regulations
Cash Investment Advance Programs (CICA)
Federal Home Loan Bank Standby Letters of Credit (LOC)
Affordable Housing Program (AHP)
Support for Local Financing
General Services Administration 46
Community Involvement
Partnering
Technical Support
Small Business Administration 47
Loan Guarantee Program
Section 504 Certified Development Company (CDC) Program
Economic Development Program
Minority Enterprise Development Program
Additional Programs for Small Business
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Introduction
Across the nation, in both urban and rural settings, public officials, community leaders, and
developers are grappling with the challenges associated with abandoned or underutilized, and possibly
contaminated, industrial and commercial properties—also known as brownfields. These properties
include once prosperous industrial areas of Chicago and Detroit; closed timber mills that dot the rural
landscape of the Pacific Northeast; abandoned mining operations in Arizona and California; and idle
shipyards and railroad depots in Delaware and Virginia. They include the omnipresent former gas
stations and dry cleaners.
Developers and investors, cautious of environmental liability, have shied away from such sites.
Contaminated properties, which are subject to many environmental regulations and procedures, also are
vulnerable to costly construction delays. Pollution concerns have led developers to pass up opportunities
in urban centers for ones in rural and suburban areas where land is perceived to be less expensive and free
from unknown liability.
In recent years, however, state and local governments have come to view the redevelopment of
brownfields as a unique opportunity to solve many problems concurrently. Projects that target blighted
communities increase employment opportunities, expand the tax base, and reduce the costs associated
with preventing crime in these areas. Redevelopment efforts also may reduce exposure to hazardous
chemical levels on idle properties; curb sprawl development by making more efficient use of land
resources; improve air quality; reduce traffic congestion; and preserve open space and farmland. In short,
brownfield redevelopment offers a cost-effective, environmentally sensitive approach to encouraging
economic revitalization in communities across the nation.
The federal government also has identified an array of programs and resources to help clean up
and reuse brownfield sites. An Interagency Working Group, established by the Environmental Protection
Agency in July 1996, enables more than 20 agencies to exchange information and coordinate activities in
support of local brownfield cleanup efforts. Vice President Al Gore in May 1997 unveiled the
Brownfields National Partnership Action Agenda that encourages agencies and programs to link
environmental protection with community revitalization and economic development. Some of the
programs supporting brownfield redevelopment were developed for this purpose, such as HUD's
Brownfield Economic Development Initiative and the 1997 brownfields tax incentive, approved by
Congress to encourage more private-sector investment in brownfield reuse. Most programs pre-date the
Brownfield National Partnership but have been modified to better meet the brownfield redevelopment
needs of communities.
This guide reviews the extensive initiatives at the Environmental Protection Agency and then
examines in alphabetical order the resources available in other departments and agencies. The Institute
collected the information by talking with spokespersons from each of the agencies in the Brownfields
National Partnership and identifying those program components best suited to meet brownfield
redevelopment, financial, and technical assistance needs. This 2000 version updates the contact names,
identifies program changes, and provides, when available, the most recent appropriations figures. This
updated edition also features "Brownfields Links," short descriptions of each agency's offerings and the
entities that can use them, and suggestions to "think about" for making long-time programs fit emerging
brownfield needs.
Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
http ://www. epa.gov/brownfields
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Funds pilot projects to demonstrate creative brownfield solutions - targeted to local governments
(and states and non-profit development corporations in some cases)
Q Provides grants to assess site contamination - targeted to local and tribal governments (and non-
profit development organizations in some cases)
Q Offers grants to projects and community organizations to address environmental problems affecting
low-income and predominantly minority populations - targeted to state, county, and local
governments; and federally recognized tribal governments; and nonprofit community organizations
Q Provides residents of communities affected by brownfields with training for work in the
environmental field - targeted to local governments for use by a variety of stakeholders
Q Offers revolving loan funds for state and local governments to capitalize loans for brownfield cleanup
- targeted private sector entities through state and local government
Q Provides grants for cooperative sustainable development efforts - targeted to local and tribal
governments, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations
Q Funds environmental education programs - targeted to state environment agencies; state, local, and
tribal education agencies; academic institutions; nonprofit organizations; and educational
broadcasting agencies
Q Provides grants to capitalize revolving loan funds (SRFs) for clean water projects - targeted to
private sector entities through states
THINK ABOUT... using EPA resources to assess sites, for marketing purposes...bringing them to a
"shovel ready" situation...offsetting info and training costs of brownfield redevelopment
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been the most active federal agency in
promoting the redevelopment of brownfields and other underutilized contaminated properties. The EPA
began its brownfield effort in 1993 guided by the belief that "environmental cleanup is a building block to
economic development, not a stumbling block, [and] that revitalizing contaminated property must go
hand-in-hand with bringing life and economic vitality back to communities."
EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative was "designed to empower states,
communities, and other stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work together in a timely manner to
prevent, assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields." An additional component of the
Brownfields Initiative is to promote environmental justice in communities affected by the problems
associated with urban decay. EPA's brownfield program includes grants, clarification of liability and
cleanup issues, partnerships, and outreach.
Brownfields Action Agenda
On January 25, 1995, the EPA announced the Brownfields Action Agenda, outlining its plans and
activities to help states address brownfields and the problems associated with contamination. The Action
Agenda outlines how EPA plans to help states and local jurisdictions understand and implement the
Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative. It is divided into four broad, overlapping categories:
brownfield pilots, clarification of liability and cleanup issues, partnerships and outreach, and job
development and training.
Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
1. Demonstration Pilots
Demonstration pilots are cooperative agreements that make up to $200,000 available for creative
two-year explorations and demonstrations of brownfield solutions. Since the initiative's inception, EPA
has funded more than 350 pilots, including projects funded in fiscal 2000.
As part of the Brownfields Partnership, the Clinton Administration selected 16 Brownfields
Showcase Communities in 1998 (and another 12 in October 2000) to exemplify the benefits achieved
through broad-based cooperation by federal, state, local, and private interests. The EPA has set the
following goals for the Brownfields Showcase Communities:
Promote environmental protection and restoration, economic redevelopment, job creation,
community revitalization, and public health protection through the assessment, cleanup, and
sustainable reuse of brownfields;
• Link federal, state, local, and non-governmental actions supporting community efforts to
restore and reuse brownfields; and
• Develop national models demonstrating the positive results of public and private
collaboration in addressing brownfield challenges.
2. Clarification of Liability and Cleanup Issues
EPA also works to help communities manage liability concerns and encourage involvement in
cleanup and redevelopment. Since 1995, EPA has issued many guidance documents to address the
liability concerns of purchasers, owners, developers, lenders, and other affected parties. One such
document addressed the liability of banks in the context of foreclosure and "button-up" activities and was
codified by Congress in the Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance Protection Act
of 1996. Since another source of concern has been the stigma associated with the identification of
properties as contaminated, EPA has removed more than 30,000 sites from the list of potential Superfund
sites (known as CERCLIS).
EPA also may delete properties from its list of Superfund sites when cleanup is complete. As of
January 4, 1999, the agency had deleted 181 sites, as well as portions of 15 sites, from the Superfund list,
and these sites can be redeveloped.
3. Partnerships and Outreach
EPA actively encourages partnerships with other federal agencies and states in order to address
brownfield redevelopment. The Brownfields National Partnership includes 24 federal departments and
agencies, and the list continues to grow. The federal government formally has committed $300 million to
the Brownfields National Partnership for investment in brownfield communities, and another $165
million has been committed in loan guarantees. EPA leverages existing resources and expertise for
brownfield cleanup and redevelopment. The agency has increased support to state agencies on
brownfields and hosts annual professional conferences to disseminate information and share experiences.
4. Workforce Development
EPA also tries to create sustainable employment opportunities in communities affected by
poverty and land neglect. In the long term, the well being of urban areas depends heavily on the
community's ability to offer good jobs to individuals. Approaches include encouraging entrepreneurial
Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
spirit in poor communities, providing low-interest loans to minority or woman-owned businesses, and
improving the capacities of communities to educate and train their populations.
Environmental Justice
One of EPA's major objectives is to ensure that underserved populations in urban areas are
treated fairly. Poor and minority communities frequently are exposed to environmental hazards, and only
recently have EPA and other regulators formally recognized environmental inequities. The Clinton
Administration in September 1993 created the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, a
federal advisory committee "to provide independent advice, consultations, and recommendations to the
EPA Administrator on environmental justice matters." President Clinton in February 1994 also issued
Executive Order 12,898, entitled "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income Populations," which created an Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice and outlined a strategy and schedule for implementation.
Environmental Justice Through Pollution Prevention (EJP2) funds are used to provide pollution
prevention resources for addressing environmental problems in low-income areas with predominantly
minority populations. Non-profit community organizations; federally recognized tribal governments; and
state, county, and local governments are eligible for grants up to $100,000. Up to $250,000 may be
requested for projects of national significance that involve multiple communities located in more than one
of EPA's ten regions. Applications are typically due in March, and project selections are made during the
summer.
Environmental justice grants provide financial assistance to non-profit community organizations,
federally recognized tribal governments, state or local governments and academic institutions to improve
communication and coordination among stakeholders and build community capacity. Non-profit
community groups and tribes are given priority. Grant awards are up to $20,000. Applications are due in
March, with final selection during the summer of the same year.
Financial Assistance
The EPA supports several pilot projects and financing initiatives. They are described below.
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots
Since initiating its brownfield redevelopment efforts in 1993, the EPA has funded more than 350
demonstration pilots. Provided up to $200,000 each over a period of two years, these pilots are intended
to "test redevelopment models, direct special efforts toward removing regulatory barriers without
sacrificing protectiveness, and facilitate coordinated site assessment, environmental cleanup and
redevelopment efforts at the federal, state, and local levels." Through fiscal 1999, EPA has awarded $57
million to these pilots.
EPA has stipulated that the pilot grants build capacity for brownfield management and
redevelopment. Since municipalities often do not have adequate information on the extent of
contamination in their jurisdiction, the brownfield pilots support inventory activity, assessment, and
planning. Some of the primary activities the agency wants to support include:
Environmental activities prior to cleanup, such as site assessment, site identification, site
characterization, and site response, or cleanup planning and design;
Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Outreach activities that educate the public about assessment, identification, characterization,
or remedial planning activities at a site or set of sites;
Development of creative financing solutions (e.g., tax incentives, revolving loan funds) to
brownfield problems; and
Brownfields pilot funds may not be used for actual cleanup or other response activities often
associated with such cleanups (e.g., landscaping and groundwater extraction and treatment).
Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Pilots (BCRLF)
The EPA also awards Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Demonstration Pilots to states
and local governments. The capitalization funds enable state or local governments to make loans
available for site cleanup. Starting in fiscal 2001, the EPA awards may range up to $1 million, are based
on community need, and must be used for environmental response and redevelopment activities. The
program is authorized and funded under Section 104(d)(l) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and is subject to all of CERCLA's
funding restrictions.
Formerly, EPA restricted grant eligibility to those entities that were awarded assessment
demonstration pilots. Beginning in fiscal 2001, eligibility will be further expanded to states, political
subdivisions, or tribes that have established and can demonstrate progress already made in the assessment,
cleanup, and revitalization of brownfields. Also eligible are political subdivisions with jurisdiction over
sites that were selected by EPA, to be the subject of a targeted brownfield site assessment. Proposals for
assistance from a revolving loan fund are not limited to sites identified, characterized, or assessed under a
previously awarded assessment pilot or targeted brownfield assessment. Proposals from coalitions,
formed among the eligible entities, are permitted to apply, but a single eligible entity must be identified as
the legal recipient.
EPA has awarded 104 brownfield cleanup revolving loan fund pilots through fiscal 2000. Grants
are awarded on a competitive basis. Selection criteria are outlined in the October 2000 application
booklet titled: The Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative: Proposal Guidelines for Brownfields
Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund.
Brownfield Job Development and Training Pilots
EPA in March 1998 launched the Brownfields Job Training and Development Demonstration
Pilots program in order to help integrate training activities with brownfield redevelopment projects.
These pilots are intended to encourage the cleanup of brownfield sites and to prepare trainees for future
environmental employment needs.
The Job Training Pilots are funded up to $200,000 each over a two-year period. These "funds are
to be used to bring together community groups, job training organizations, educators, investors, lenders,
developers, and other affected parties to address the issue of providing training for residents in
communities impacted by brownfields." Since 1998, EPA has funded 37 pilot communities.
Clean Air/Brownfield Partnership Pilots
EPA recently joined with the Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration
and the U.S. Conference of Mayors to create the Clean Air/Brownfields Partnership Pilot. The
cooperative initiative has been allocated $500,000 in federal funding and is intended to improve air
quality and stimulate economic revitalization; Baltimore, Chicago, and Dallas are the demonstration cities
for this effort. Specifically, the funding will be used to:
Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Study the relationship between clean air, brownfields assessment and cleanup, and economic
development issues;
quantify the air quality and other environmental and economic benefits of redeveloping
brownfield sites within a city, instead of developing new sites in the suburbs or on
undeveloped land;
• make it easier for urban developers to offset emissions from new development by reducing it
elsewhere in the city; and
• look at air quality benefits derived from locating clean power plants on brownfield properties
in urban areas.
EPA anticipates that these initial pilots will serve as models to other cities in order to harmonize
economic growth with efforts to protect the health of the community.
Sustainable Development Challenge Grants
Sustainable Development Challenge Grants encourage community groups, businesses, and
government agencies to work together on sustainable development efforts, including brownfield projects
that conserve natural resources, promote a healthy economy, and improve the quality of life for members
of the community. Eligible recipients include local governments, tribes, educational institutions, and
incorporated non-profit organizations. The program's two funding categories are grants of $50,000 or
less or grants between $50,000 to $250,000.
Targeted Site Assessments
EPA contractors can conduct site assessments under EPA oversight in order to identify possible
contamination. Priority is given to municipalities that currently do not have an EPA brownfield pilot.
States, municipalities, and political subdivisions are eligible, but there is no funding provided with an
assessment.
Environmental Education
EPA provides financial support for projects that design, demonstrate, or disseminate
environmental education practices, methods, and techniques, including brownfield reuse. Local, tribal, or
state educational agencies; colleges and universities; non-profit organizations; state environmental
agencies; and educational broadcasting agencies are eligible for funding up to $25,000 for each project.
Applications are due in mid-November.
Solid Waste Management Assistance Grants
Limited funds are available for demonstration projects that promote effective solid waste
management through source reduction, reuse, recycling, and improved landfill technology. The program
is funded through regional and national competition grants. Non-profit entities and state and local
governments are eligible for the awards that typically are less than $50,000; a matching share is not
required. Priority is given to innovative recycling programs, outreach and training in source reduction
and recycling, and projects that use integrated systems to solve municipal solid waste generation and
management problems at local, regional, and national levels.
Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund
The Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to provide grants to states in order to capitalize revolving
loan funds (SRFs) for wastewater treatment facilities and other clean water projects. SRF resources are
Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
available to correct nonpoint source water quality problems, and projects included in any state's Nonpoint
Source Management Plan, including brownfield redevelopment projects, are eligible for SRF funding.
Brownfield showcase communities and pilots with such projects also are eligible for SRF funding. States
set the priority for how SRF funds are allocated to eligible activities. These are essentially low-cost
loans, so a revenue stream must exist to provide repayment.
The list of brownfield projects that may be eligible for Clean Water SRF funding include, but are
not limited to: excavation and disposal of underground storage tanks; constructed wetlands (filtering
mechanism); capping of wells; excavation, removal, and disposal of contaminated soil or sediments;
tunnel demolition; well abandonment; and Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III assessments.
Contacts
EPA Brownfields Program
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields
(202) 260-4039
Environmental Justice Grants
http://es.epa.gov/oeca/oej/grants.html
Robert J. Knox
Acting Director
800-962-6215, 202/564-2515
Environmental Justice Through Pollution Prevention (EJP2)
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/ejp2
Sustainable Development Challenge Grants
http://www.epa.gov/ooaujeag/notebook/sdcg.htm
Dr. Lynn Desautels
(202)260-6812
desautels.lynn@epa.gov
Environmental Education
http://www.epa.gov/enviroed/grants.html
Diane Berger and Sheri Jojokian
Environmental Education Specialists
(202)260-8619
Solid Waste Management Assistance Grants
http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda/p66808.htnrfi38
Grants Administration Division
3903F
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 260-9266
Clean Air/Brownfields Partnership Pilot
http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/html-doc/cleanair.htm
Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Appalachian Regional Commission
http://www.arc.gov/
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides grants for roads and highways - targeted to state and local governments and to
Q Offers planning and technical assistance to attract private investment to distressed areas - targeted to
THINK ABOUT.....tapping ARC funding to meet site access road and similar other infrastructure support
needs...cover site planning costs
The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) administers several small economic development
and infrastructure grant programs in the 13-state Appalachian region. They include programs for
development planning and technical assistance, highway development, local access roads, vocational
educational facilities, and water and sewer system construction. ARC can also support small business
start-ups and expansions. These programs are organized in several divisions, including the Appalachian
Development Highway System; Economic and Human Development Activities; an Entrepreneurship
Initiative; and a Business Development Revolving Loan Fund program. They all are designed to improve
the economic climate in distressed areas to make them better able to attract private investment - important
brownfield considerations.
Projects with the potential to generate new jobs are usually given top priority during the review
process. Grant applications must be submitted by the state office designated by the governor, and they
often are submitted on behalf of local governments, multi-county organizations, educational institutions,
and non-profit organizations. In fiscal year!999 ARC provided a total of $66 million for 483 projects
region wide.
Contact
Tanya Higbee
Program Analyst
Appalachian Regional Commission
Office of the Federal Co-Chairman
1666 Connecticut Avenue
Room 614
Washington, DC 20325
(202) 884 7713
thigbee@arc.gov
Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
http://www.fs.fed.us
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides technical assistance to Brownfield Showcase Communities - targeted to local governments
of Showcase Communities
Q Offers technical and financial assistance for sustainable redevelopment and reuse projects - targeted
to state and local governments and community-based groups in Atlanta, Seattle, New York, Chicago,
San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, Las Vegas, East St. Louis, South Florida (four county area),
Philadelphia, Boston, and Buffalo
THINKABOUT...brownfieldsproject landscaping needs
The Forest Service is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's primary participant in the Brownfields
National Partnership. The Forest Service's mission is to achieve quality land management under the
sustainable multiple-use management concept in order to meet the diverse needs of people. In connection
with brownfield redevelopment, the Forest Service is helping states and communities use the forests
wisely in order to promote rural economic development and a quality rural environment.
The Forest Service has committed a total of $400,000 to provide technical assistance to the 16
Brownfield Showcase Communities. This assistance will be administered through several different
activities, detailed below.
State Urban Forestry Coordinators
These coordinators help encourage environmentally responsible redevelopment within the
Showcase Communities. In particular, they work closely with municipal governments to develop
strategic plans for brownfield reuse that ensures that infrastructure development is environmentally
sensitive, and to protect urban natural resources.
Open Space Development and Tree Planting
Efforts are being made to link Showcase Communities with organizations that provide technical
assistance and funding for open space development and tree planting, including the National Tree Trust,
American Forests, ReLeaf Fund, and National Arbor Day Foundation. Research also is being conducted
on the effects of using trees during the brownfield remediation process.
USDA Urban Resources Partnership
The Urban Resources Partnership (URP) is a multi-agency initiative that provides funding and
technical assistance to community-led environmental projects. The Forest Service has selected 13 areas
(noted above) in which the URP has been established. In each of these cities, Forest Service staff
collaborate with municipal officials and other state and federal agency stakeholders in order to provide
assistance packages, primarily to nonprofit community based organizations. The URP works closely with
community development corporations as a mechanism for making its resources available at the
neighborhood level. Assistance can include grant funds, technical assistance, and/or access to existing
agency resources. Other communities may be added through a competitive application process as other
cities "graduate" from direct federal support.
Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Contact
Blake Velde
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Hazardous Materials Management Group
1400 Independence Avenue SW
MS 9100
Washington, DC 20250-9100
(202) 205-0906
Fax:(202)401-4770
blake .velde@usda.gov
10 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U.S. Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration
http ://www. doc.gov/eda
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Funds infrastructure enhancements in designated redevelopment areas or economic development
centers that serve industry and commerce - targeted to state, local, and tribal governments; public
and private organizations
Q Funds state and local implementation of strategies to attract private-sector investment in projects that
strengthen an area's economic base - targeted to state and local governments
Q Provides planning grants to economically distressed states and regions - targeted to state, regional,
local, and tribal governments
Q Funds infrastructure modernization at closed military bases - targeted to local governments,
development organizations
Q Offers revolving loan funds to stimulate private investment - targeted to local governments, states
THINKABOUT...cleanup needs at reviving industrial areas...street, utility, and other infrastructure
needs at brownfield projects...site marketing
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has been a pioneer and active participant in
economic development and community revitalization for the past 30 years. Long before the term
"brownfields" was coined, the EDA implemented programs to help economically distressed communities
alleviate the adverse conditions created by unemployment. It continues to provide funding to promote
infrastructure development, business development, and economic revitalization. The EDA's mission is
"to generate new jobs, help retain existing jobs, and stimulate industrial and commercial growth in
economically-distressed areas of the United States." EDA and EPA since 1995 have had a memorandum
of understanding that states their intended objective to coordinate economic development and
environmental protection goals through federal brownfield initiatives. Moreover, EDA provides technical
assistance to EPA for implementing the revolving loan fund program.
Several EDA programs can be used to facilitate the redevelopment of brownfield sites, including:
• Public Works and Development Facilities Program;
• Economic Adjustment Program;
• Planning Program for Economic Development Districts, Indian Tribes and Redevelopment
Areas;
Planning Program for States and Urban Areas; and
• Defense Economic Conversion.
Public Works and Development Facilities Program
The Public Works and Development Facilities Program is EDA's primary initiative that directly
affects the redevelopment of brownfield sites. The program's funding is used to help distressed
communities attract resources from the public and private sectors in order to promote economic
development. Since 1965, the program has helped fund roads, water and sewer facilities, port
improvements, and other infrastructure enhancements that serve industry and commerce; it has been
directly responsible for creating more than 1.5 million jobs. Grants are available to state and local
governments, Indian tribes, and public and private organizations, provided that the funds are used for
projects located within an EDA-designated Redevelopment Area or Economic Development Center. The
Public Works Program received $205.8 million in 1999, with an average grant of $829,000.
Northeast-Midwest Report 11
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Economic Adjustment Program
The Economic Adjustment Program helps states and local governments that experience sudden
and severe economic dislocation or long-term economic deterioration to design and implement adjustment
and redevelopment strategies that will strengthen their economic base. Many communities across the
country suffer economic decline from a variety of factors, including corporate or industrial restructuring,
defense base closures, federal laws and regulations, environmental degradation, and natural disasters.
The program's funding encourages states and local governments to implement strategies that will attract
private-sector investment and participation in projects that strengthen an area's economic base. EDA has
targeted the redevelopment of brownfields as a necessary and vital component in fulfilling the program's
objectives. The Title IX program received $34.6 million in 1999 and provided an average grant of
$175,000.
Planning Program for Economic Development Districts, Indian Tribes,
and Redevelopment Areas; and Planning Program for States and Urban Areas
EDA has developed two planning programs, with overlapping policies, to help states and local
governments create new jobs, retain existing jobs, and stimulate industrial and commercial growth in
economically-distressed areas. The Planning Program for Economic Development Districts, Indian
Tribes, and Redevelopment Areas and the Planning Program for States and Urban Areas provide funding
that helps the planning process at both the micro and macro levels of government.
Through the Districts, Tribes, and Redevelopment Areas Program, the EDA promotes workforce
development activities in distressed areas at the local level. Presently, EDA supports 65 Indian tribes and
over 300 economic development districts in the formation and implementation of enterprises intended to
generate and retain jobs in these communities.
Grants under the States and Urban Areas Program assist economically distressed states, sub-state
planning regions, cities, and urban counties to undertake significant new economic development planning,
policy-making, and implementation efforts.
Planning grants, which totaled $24 million in 1999, ranged from $10,000 to $200,000.
Defense Economic Conversion
To assist communities impacted by military base closures and contractor cutbacks, EDA also
invests in infrastructure modernization at closed military bases in order to stimulate private-sector
redevelopment. EDA provides this support through building demolition, construction of new buildings,
rehabilitation of existing buildings, water and sewer upgrades, and development of access roads. The
program was appropriated $84.8 million in 1999, and provided an average grant of $1.2 million.
12 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Contact
Dennis Alvord
Economic Development Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce, Rm 7326
14th St. & Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20230
(202) 482-4320
Fax: (202) 482-3742
dalvord@doc.gov
Frank Monteferrante
U.S. Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration (EDA)
Room 7816
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
H. C. Hoover Building
Washington, DC 20230
(202) 482-4208
Fax: (202) 482-0995
fmontefe@doc.gov
Public Works and Development Facilities Program
http ://www. doc .gov/eda/html/pwprog .htm
Economic Adjustment Program
http://www.doc.gov/eda/html/econadj.htm
Planning Program for Economic Development Districts, Indian Tribes and Redevelopment Areas
http://www.doc.gov/eda/html/planothr.htm
Planning Program for States and Urban Areas
http://www.doc.gov/eda/html/planning.htm
Northeast-Midwest Report 13
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U. S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
http://www.noaa.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides technical and financial assistance for coastal resource protection and management - targeted
to coastal (including Great Lakes) state, territorial, and local governments
Q Funds workshops in Showcase Communities on brownfields-related coastal management issues -
targeted to local governments in Showcase Communities
THINKABOUT...meetingplanning and site design needs at waterfront brownfields
To achieve its mission, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), within
the U.S. Department of Commerce, has developed a strategy that includes promoting healthy coasts.
Since many brownfields are located in coastal communities where industry is close to waterways and
shorelines, NOAA has developed several initiatives that affect the redevelopment of brownfields. Three
NOAA offices have programs affecting brownfield reuse: the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM); the Office of Response and Restoration; and the Office of Sustainable
Development.
Funding Through the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program
Of the three offices, OCRM, which derives its authority from the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972, is the largest participant in activities that affect brownfield redevelopment. It provides financial
and technical assistance to coastal (including Great Lakes) states and territories in order to implement
comprehensive coastal resource protection and management programs. For example, OCRM provides
assistance to waterfront revitalization efforts, which may include the reuse of brownfields. In addition,
OCRM serves as an information source for coastal decision makers who need data on successful
waterfront revitalization efforts around the country.
OCRM makes financial support available through small grants, ranging in size up to $25,000.
These funds help local coastal communities develop feasibility or relocation studies and promote coastal
area revitalization; they also can be used for planning, engineering, and site designs.
Technical Assistance Through the Coastal Resource Coordinator (CRC) Program
NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R), formerly known as the Hazardous
Materials Response and Assessment Division (HAZMAT), provides assistance that indirectly affects
brownfield redevelopment. OR&R's primary mission is to reduce the risks to coastal areas from
hazardous waste sites and oil and chemical spills. To this end, it provides technical assistance when
coastal resources, such as fish and coastal habitats, are adversely impacted as a result of brownfield
contamination. It also provides site assessments and technical assistance for remediation projects.
OR&R has placed staff members, called coastal resource coordinators, in EPA regional offices around the
country. These NOAA scientists work closely with EPA personnel to help coordinate efforts that clean
up hazardous waste sites and protect endangered natural resources.
Workshops in Showcase Communities
The Office of Sustainable Development provides funding for workshops in certain Showcase
Communities to focus on coastal management issues related to brownfield initiatives. Grants of $10,000
14 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
will be awarded to selected Showcase Communities in fiscal 1999. Already selected communities
include: Glen Cove, NY; Stamford, CT (focus on urban water front revitalization and harbor preservation
projects); Providence, RI; and Baltimore, MD (focus on habitat and coastal restoration).
Contact
Joshua Sterns
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Sustainable Development and Intergovernmental Affairs
14th Street & Constitution Avenue NW, Rm. 5222
Washington, DC 20230
(202) 482-4592
Fax: (202) 501-8066
joshua.sterns@noaa.gov
Kenneth Walker
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
MC: SSMC
1305 East West Highway, Rm. 11340
Silver Spring, MD 20912
(301) 713-3113 Ext. 157
Fax:(301)713-4367
kenneth.walker@noaa.gov
Coastal Zone Management Program
http://www.nos.noaa.gov/ocrm/czm/welcome.html
Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R)
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov
Coastal Programs Division, N/ORM3
1305 East-West Highway, SSMC4
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
(301)713-3102
fax (301) 713-4367
Publications
http://www.lib.noaa.gov
Northeast-Midwest Report 15
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U.S. Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers
http ://www.usace. army.mil
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides technical assistance - targeted to state and local governments
Q Provides technical support on a cost-reimbursable basis- targeted to local governments
THINK ABOUT...using the Corps for planning for projects and related amenities in waterfront situations
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manages and executes engineering, construction, and real
estate programs for the Army and Air Force, as well as for other federal agencies as assigned. It also has
responsibility for investigating, developing, and maintaining the nation's water and related environmental
resources; and projects to assure water quality control and enhancement of outdoor recreation, among
other things.
The Corps of Engineers argues that "for a brownfield program to become truly sustainable, a
three-pronged approach that considers economic, environmental, and cultural resources must be
considered not only in the short term, but also in the long term." The Corps maintains that by bringing
ecology back into the urban setting, where the majority of brownfields are located, it can help reverse and
prevent suburban sprawl by encouraging inhabitants to reside within established, developed areas.
Technical Assistance
The Corps provides communities with technical assistance to assess and evaluate brownfield
problems and to help restore these sites for sustainable environment and economic growth. It maintains
expertise that can help communities address brownfield challenges, such as obtaining site assessment and
cleanup funds; navigating complex environmental regulations; developing integrated plans that include
different environmental media to promote comprehensive, self-sustaining community enhancements; and
developing ecological and technical solutions for problems associated with site assessment, cleanup, and
restoration.
While the Corps of Engineers does not have a program and does not provide grant money that
specifically targets brownfields, it does make resources available to communities developing brownfield
projects.
Reimbursable Support
The Corps can provide a variety of services and products to brownfield communities on a cost-
reimbursable basis, including technical support, contracting support, and integration support for civil
works programs. Communities interested in determining whether a particular site contains contamination
can contact the Army Corps of Engineers for technical support from a variety of environmental engineers.
The Corps also provides technical assistance and support for the removal of hazardous materials,
consultations, and design assistance. Moreover, the Corps provides a host of ecological services that
assist in the restoration of the environment.
Civil Works Funding
Communities and the private sector interested in brownfield reuse can access funds from several
existing authorities, including flood control and restoration of the environment. Funding is made on a
cost-shared basis, and recipients are required to comply with all Corps procedures.
16 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Contact
Bill Brassey
U.S. Department of Defense
HQ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
MC: CEMP-RS
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Room 3228
Washington, DC 20314-1000
(202)761-8879
Fax: (202) 761-0525
bill.w.brassey@hq02.usace.army.mil
Jim Wolcott
U.S. Department of Defense
HQ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
MC: CECW-E
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20314-1000
(202)761-1200
james.w.wolcott@usace.army.mil
Jack J. Bickley
U.S. Department of Defense
HQ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
MC: CECW-EP
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20314-1000
(202)761-8892
Fax: (202) 761-4002
jack.j .bickley@hqO 1 .usace.army.mil
Technical Assistance
Program Description and Regional Contacts
http://brownfields.sac.usace.army.mil/index.html
Northeast-Midwest Report
17
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U. S. Department of Defense
Office of Economic Adjustment
http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/oea/home.nsf
BROWNFIELD LINK
Q Provides extensive information on cleanup and redevelopment of closed military bases and
surrounding areas - targeted to all brownfield community stakeholders
THINKABOUT...offsettingproject technical information needs
The Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) is the Defense Department's primary office for
providing adjustment assistance to communities, regions, and states adversely impacted by significant
military program changes. These changes include base expansions, closures or realignments; major
contract changes that result in significant worker layoffs, and other personnel reductions and increases.
OEA manages and directs the Defense Economic Adjustment Program and coordinates and facilitates the
involvement of the federal agencies.
OEA has gained extensive experience with brownfield redevelopment because much of its
managed property has some level of contamination. OEA's goal is to integrate the cleanup issues into the
overall planning for redevelopment, and since many base closure actions result in extensive planning and
review of economic development goals, there is usually an excellent opportunity to make brownfield
redevelopment a part of a larger set of community development actions.
OEA staff represent a broad and extensive range of experience with respect to the military;
economic, industrial, and community development; urban and land use planning; program and economic
impact analysis; real estate; and worker retraining. Project managers also bring knowledge and a working
network with other federal agencies to help communities put together an adjustment program that
combines federal, state, local, and private resources.
In 1997, the most recent edition of the Base Reuse Implementation Manual (BRIM) was released.
This manual provides guidance to all Defense Department services on base closure activities, and it
contains extensive information on site cleanup at closing installations, with a focus on fast tracking these
activities so that surplus military land can be moved as expeditiously as possible into the private sector.
Included in the manual is guidance on:
• Establishing base realignment and closure cleanup teams;
• Accelerating the NEPA analysis process for base disposal decisions; and
• Improving public involvement in environmental cleanup at closing bases.
OEA can be a significant resource, but it tends to be overlooked by many brownfield stakeholders
who are not involved directly with a base closure process. As part of its redevelopment planning and
research, OEA conducts industry studies and needs evaluations that can provide a great deal of
information useful beyond the borders of a closing military base.
Contact:
Serena Eitler, Project Manager
400 Army Navy Drive
Arlington, VA 22202-2884
(703) 604-5690
Fax: (703) 604-5843
18 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
eitlercc@acq .usd .mil
Northeast-Midwest Report 19
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U. S. Department of Education
http://www.ed.gov
BROWNFIELD LINK
Q Funds education and training programs related to economic development - targeted to state
governments; education agencies; and academic institutions
THINK ABOUT...enhancing brownfleld project cashflow by offsetting workforce preparation costs
While the Department of Education does not have a specific program advancing brownfield
redevelopment, it supports the Brownfields Action Agenda's job development and training category.
Four Education Department programs have relevance to this partnership effort: the Adult Education and
Literacy Program (administered through the Office of Vocational and Adult Education); the Vocational
and Technical Education Program (administered through the Office of Vocational and Adult Education.);
the School to Work Opportunities Program (administered jointly by the Department of Education and the
Department of Labor); and the Community Colleges Program (administered by the Community Colleges
Liaison Office, the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, and the Department of Education).
Contact
George W. Spicely
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
600 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202
(202) 205-9720
Fax: (202) 205-8973
george_spicely@ed.gov
Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE)
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
4090 MES
600 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202
Phone:(202)205-5451
Fax: (202) 205-8748
ovae@inet.ed.gov
Student Financial Assistance
http ://www. ed .gov/fmaid .html
Guide to U.S. Department of Education Programs and Resources
http://web99.ed.gov/GTEP/Program2.nsf
20 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U.S. Department of Energy
http//:www.doe.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Funds research on assessment and cleanup technology - targeted to universities, labs, and private
industry
Q Offers information on integrating brownfield redevelopment with energy efficiency and
sustainability- targeted to all brownfield community stakeholders
THINKABOUT...using new, applicable DOE-supported remedial technologies to reduce cleanup costs
The Department of Energy (DOE) has been the caretaker and manager of the nation's arsenal of
nuclear weapons, the facilities that manufacture the weapons, and the property on which the weapons are
located. Many DOE properties that were once busy with nuclear manufacturing and warehousing activity
now lie dormant or idle, due in part to the downsizing of the military in general and to the closure of
nuclear weapons facilities in particular. As a result, DOE has been forced to consider the future uses of
these abandoned and contaminated properties.
Most nuclear facilities were located in remote areas of the country, but some now are surrounded
by urban development. These facilities are of particular importance to DOE and the local communities in
which they are located. Many properties contain low levels of contamination because they were used
only as buffer zones for the nuclear weapons facilities, while only a few parcels were used in the
production of nuclear weapons and have high levels of contamination.
Office of Environmental Management
The Department of Energy conducts research, development, and engineering on assessment and
remediation of contaminated sites. DOE's Office of Environmental Management (EM) funds both
cleanup of DOE's contaminated sites and R&D on cleanup and assessment technologies. A cursory
survey of DOE's current research reveals millions of dollars' worth of studies aimed at developing,
validating, or testing remediation and assessment technologies. Although these technologies are
developed for and/or tested on DOE's own contaminated sites, many have broader applicability.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy/
Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development
This DOE office serves as a resource center on sustainable development and addresses several
relevant issues, including land use planning, transportation, municipal energy, green building, and
sustainable businesses. Brownfield redevelopment is considered a key strategy for implementing
sustainable development successfully, and the center provides a number of resources. The website —
www.sustainable.doe.gov — also provides a bibliography.
Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs (BTS)
BTS works with government, industry, and communities to integrate energy technologies and
practices to make buildings more efficient and communities more livable. The resources available
through BTS can help ensure that brownfield cleanup is connected to energy efficiency and sustainable
redevelopment. The BTS website can be found on www.eren.doe.gov.
Northeast-Midwest Report 21
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Contacts
Melinda Downing
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Intergovernmental and Public Accountability
EM-11
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Room1F087
Washington, DC 20585
(202) 586-7703
Fax: (202) 586-0293
melinda. downing@em .doe .gov
Joel Rubin
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW, EE-3
Washington, DC 20585
(202)586-6713
Fax:(202)586-8177
joel.rubin@ee.doe.gov
Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development
http ://www. sustainable .doe .gov
Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs
http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings
22 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
http://atsdrl.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides grants to cleanup and redevelop brownfield sites while preventing future health hazards -
targeted to local health departments in showcase communities
Q Studies and provides training in environmental health impacts on minority communities - targeted to
academic institutions and various brownfield community stakeholders
Q Offers assessment of environmental sampling data - targeted to all brownfield community
stakeholders
THINKABOUT...usingATSDR review to enhance community outreach efforts at brownfield sites
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), created by the 1980
Superfund legislation and operating within the Department of Health and Human Services, seeks to
prevent human exposure to hazardous substances in the environment. Its public health functions include:
assessments of sites, the analysis and reporting of collected assessment data, education and training
concerning hazardous substances, epidemiological surveillance studies, and the mitigation of releases of
hazardous substances into the environment.
ATSDR established the Office of Urban Affairs (OUA) to primarily handle its brownfield
activities. This office also focuses on environmental justice and minority health concerns.
Public Health Department Grants
Public Health Department Grants are available to local public health departments that have
jurisdiction within the Brownfields Showcase Communities. The grants help remediate and revitalize
brownfield sites, while not causing health hazards for present and future members of the community.
ATSDR anticipates that five to seven projects will receive awards. Approximately $350,000 was
available in 1998, with grants average between $50,000 to $70,000.
Minority Health Initiative
ATSDR in 1987 established a Minority Health Initiative to focus on the demographic
characteristics, health perspectives, health communication patterns, and health professional and
community health education needs of disadvantaged communities and persons of color. This effort has
evolved into the agency's Minority Health/Environmental Justice Program, which has four goals:
• Demographics: To develop a comprehensive demographic profile of communities living near
hazardous waste sites and other sources of hazardous substances;
• Health Studies and Applied Research: To determine the relationship between identified
adverse human health outcomes and hazardous substances in disadvantaged communities and
persons of color;
• Community Involvement and Risk Communication: To develop and execute environmental
risk communication and education programs to mitigate and prevent adverse health effects
from hazardous substances in disadvantaged communities and people of color; and
Northeast-Midwest Report 23
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Training and Education: To increase racial and ethnic diversity in the environmental public
health profession. This effort assists with curriculum development in academic institutions,
faculty support through research projects, seminars and workshops in toxicology and other
disciplines, and short-term training for professionals in disciplines related to identifying and
preventing environmental hazards.
Review and Assess Environmental Sampling Data
ATSDR can review and assess environmental sampling data and other site-related information in
order to determine if past, current, or future exposure to hazardous substances might have public health
consequences. In essence, ATSDR or state health departments can provide an independent opinion on
site conditions and offer recommendations on safe redevelopment. In those rare cases where it appears
that significant exposure to hazardous chemicals is occurring or did occur, ASTDR may conduct an
investigation to characterize the public health significance of site-related exposures.
Health-Related Information Sharing
ASTDR can provide health-related information on specific hazardous substances; coordinate a
response to a real or perceived elevated incidence of disease near a site; and help individual workers or
community members find experienced, private medical attention for significant hazardous substance
exposure.
Contact
Steve Jones
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Agency For Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
MC:5101
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-9056
Fax: (202) 260-6606
j ones, steve@epa.gov
24 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/wept/bfield.htm
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Conducts research and outreach on environmental hazards in low-income and minority communities
- targeted to all brownfield community stakeholders
Q Conducts pilot programs to recruit minority workers to the environmental field - currently targeted to
six academic institutions and training consortia - (Clark Atlanta University, Jackson State
University, Laborers-AGC Education and Training Fund, Center to Protect Workers Rights, DePaul
University, New Jersey/New York Consortium)
Q Provides grants for grants for model occupational safety and health training for workers who perform
dangerous jobs in hazardous waste management and remediation - targeted to private training
entities (currently, 20 grantees)
THINK ABOUT...strengthening training programs to increase cleanup service provider options in areas
with numerous brownfield sites
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) studies and addresses the
environmental causes of human health concerns. As part of its commitment to the Brownfields National
Partnership, NIEHS tries to link its basic research, community outreach, and worker-training programs to
EPA's Brownfields Assessment Pilot Projects.
Basic Research
One of NIEHS's research and outreach efforts focuses on environmental hazards specific to poor
and minority communities. The Institute recognizes that poor and minority communities often have
higher environmental exposure to toxins because they are more likely to live in older homes with lead
paint, to be exposed to hazardous chemicals at work, to live near hazardous waste sites, and to live where
there is air pollution or polluted water. To bridge the gap between public health researchers and the
communities that are studied for environmental effects, NIEHS has developed a program entitled
Environmental Justice: Partnership for Communication.
Minority Worker Training Program
NIEHS also administers a Worker Education and Training Program that currently includes the
Minority Worker Training Program (MWTP). Conducted cooperatively with EPA, it provides a series of
national pilot programs to recruit minority workers into the environmental field. The program targets
young people who live in areas where they may be at risk of exposure to contaminated properties so that
they can be both informed about the environmental issues in the area as well as compete for jobs that are
created when sites are cleaned up and redeveloped.
The MWTP works with academic institutions, with a particular focus on historically black
colleges and universities, as well as public schools and community-based organizations located in or
nearby impacted areas (see list above) in order to provide pre-math, science, or other related education to
program participants prior to or concurrent with entry into the training program.
These diverse programs provide pre-employment job training, including literacy, life skills, and
environmental preparation; construction skills, including hazardous waste, asbestos and lead abatement
training, and safety and health training; as well as apprenticeship programs for construction and
Northeast-Midwest Report 25
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
environmental remediation worker training. A particular focus is placed on establishing a program of
mentoring.
Superfund Worker Training Grants Program
Originally authorized as part of the Superfund program, these training grants provide model
occupational safety and health training for workers and their supervisors who perform dangerous jobs in
the nation's hazardous waste management and remediation programs. Innovation for training
difficult-to-reach populations is supported by addressing issues such as literacy, appropriate adult
education techniques, training quality improvement, and other areas unaddressed directly by the
marketplace. The program enhances rather than replaces private-sector training responsibility by
demonstrating new and cost-effective training techniques and materials. There are 20 primary grantees,
and NIEHS reports that 500,000 people across the country have received training.
The program also has established technically-proficient curriculum materials and
quality-controlled course presentations. Moreover, it has established new national benchmarks for quality
worker safety and health training.
Contact
Sharon D. Beard
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
PO Box 12233, MD EC-25
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2233
(919)541-1863
Fax: (919)541-0462
beard 1 @niehs .nih.gov
Joseph (Chip) Hughes, Jr.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS)
MD EC-25
Worker Education and Training Program
79 TW Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2233
(919)541-0217
Fax:(919) 541-0462
hughes3 @niehs .nih .gov
26 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Community Services
http ://www. acf. dhhs.gov/programs/ocs/
BROWNFIELD LINK
Q Provides grants for brownfield cleanup, redevelopment, training - targeted to community
development corporations and community action agencies
THINKABOUT...using community-based entities as a conduit to project cleanup and development
resources
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Community Services
supports state, local, and community institutions with a broad range of revitalization efforts. In particular,
it helps build the capacity of disadvantaged individuals and communities. Funds are provided for a
number of activities, including actual development and pre-development tasks.
As part of its commitment to the Brownfields National Partnership, OCS provides grants up to
$500,000 to community development corporations and community action agencies that may be used for
cleanup, redevelopment, or job training projects at brownfield pilot sites. This effort is part of OCS'
Urban and Rural Economic Development Discretionary Grants program, which will distribute more than
$26 million in fiscal 2000.
Contact
Donald Sykes
Agency for Children and Families
Office of Community Services
HHS
Aerospace Building
370 L'Enfant Plaza
Washington, D.C. 20447
(202)401-9333
Fax:(202)401-4694
dsykes@acf.dhhs.gov
Northeast-Midwest Report 27
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
http://www.hud.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides grants for revitalizing entitlement communities - targeted to state and local governments
Q Offers federally-guaranteed loans for large economic development and revitalization projects in
entitlement communities - targeted to state and local governments
Q Provides priority status for certain federal programs and grants for HUD-designated Empowerment
Zone or Enterprise Communities - targeted to 105 local governments with low-income or distressed
areas
THINKABOUT...using HUD resources to meet virtually any brownfield need
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has made a strong commitment
to the reuse of brownfields. HUD takes the position that brownfields provide potential opportunities for
neighborhood revitalization and economic redevelopment. Five brownfield-applicable HUD programs
provide resources for the renewal of economically distressed areas.
• Community Development Block Grant Program;
• Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program;
• Brownfield Economic Development Initiative (and the related Economic Development
Initiative);
• Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program; and
• Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities Initiative.
Community Development Block Grant Program
Since its enactment in 1974, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program has
provided annual grants to states and eligible metropolitan cities and urban counties ("entitlement
communities") for community improvement activities. The grants can be used to "revitalize
neighborhoods, expand affordable housing and economic opportunities, and/or improve community
facilities and services." The program increasingly has become a significant impetus for economic
development activities, including brownfield redevelopment, that have the potential to stimulate job and
business opportunities in blighted communities.
HUD distributes approximately 70 percent of the CDBG budget to roughly 1,200 entitlement
communities, and the remaining amount to the states for small city activities. States and entitlement
communities administer their own programs for the distribution of the CDBG funds, and have great
discretion in how the funds are allocated. The funds may be awarded to private or public, for-profit or
nonprofit organizations and, among other things, may be used for brownfield redevelopment projects that
promote the program's three objectives: a) benefit low- and moderate-income families; b) prevent or
eliminate slums or blight; or c) meet other urgent community development needs. CDBG was
appropriated $4.8 billion in fiscal 1999.
28 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
States and entitlement communities that participate in the CDBG program also are eligible for
funding through the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program. Section 108 provides federally-guaranteed
loans for large economic development and revitalization projects. CDBG recipients are required to
pledge current and/or future CDBG allocations in return for larger secured loans that may be used to
pursue revitalization and economic development projects that encompass entire communities. HUD
anticipates that the level of security provided by these loans will assist in the stimulation of private
development and investment within the targeted communities.
Section 108 guaranteed loans must be used for projects that further the objectives of the CDBG
program. As such, these funds may be used to acquire and redevelop brownfield sites within blighted
communities. In fiscal 1999, Section 108 provided an estimated $1.26 billion in loan guarantee authority.
Economic Development Initiative (EDI)/Brownfields EDI (BEDI)
HUD launched the Economic Development Initiative (EDI) to provide additional security to
recipients of Section 108 guaranteed loans, as well as additional financial assistance for development
projects that these loans finance. EDI addresses Section 108 recipient concerns that CDBG funding will
be at risk in the event of default on the Section 108 loans. EDI decreases this risk by providing loan
recipients access to, and use of, additional financial support. Specifically, EDI funds may be used to pay
a portion of project costs, thereby reducing overall liability, or they may be used as reserve security in the
event of loan default. HUD anticipates that the funds will spur economic development and revitalization
by making projects more feasible and financially secure. EDI has had particular success in increasing
access to capital for small businesses and entrepreneurs.
In 1998, HUD developed the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) as part of the
overall EDI. The BEDI grants target brownfield redevelopment activities and are intended to simulate
private and public investments within local communities. The program received $25 million in fiscal
1999, and made 22 awards.
Empowerment Zones (EZ) and Enterprise Communities (EC) Initiative
EZs and ECs help distressed, low-income communities increase their access to tax incentives,
performance grants, and loans that are intended for economic development and community revitalization
activities. HUD administers the initiative in urban communities, while the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) handles the rural component.
Through the initiative, urban communities develop a "comprehensive strategy to promote
economic opportunity and community revitalization" and apply to HUD for Empowerment Zone or
Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) designation. Designated communities receive priority status for certain
federal programs, including the aforementioned HUD programs, that assist community development
activities.
Since the initiative's inception in 1994, HUD and the USDA have designated 105 EZ/EC sites
(72 urban and 33 rural). These EZ/ECs have had access to a number of benefits, including more than
$1.5 billion in performance grants and over $2.5 billion in tax incentives. Specific benefits include:
wage tax credits for employers; tax relief for business equipment purchases; tax-exempt bond financing
for business property; tax incentives for brownfield clean up and redevelopment; private-activity bonds to
promote commercial investment; public-school-renovation tax credits; and priority status to funds
available through CDBG, Section 108, and EDI.
Northeast-Midwest Report 29
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Contact
Don Green
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Enterprise Zone
451 7th Street, SW, Room 7130
Washington, DC 20410
(202) 708-6339
Fax:(202)401-7615
don_green@hud.gov
Community Development Block Grant
Program
http://www.hud.gov/progdesc/cdbg-st.html
Steve Johnson
Acting Director
State and Small Cities Division
Office of Block Grant Assistance in
Office of Community Planning and Development
4517th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20410
(202) 708-1322
Community Development Block Grant
Entitlement Communities Program
Sue Miller
Director
Entitlement Communities Division
Office of Block Grant Assistance in
Office of Community Planning and Development
4517th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20410
(202)708-1577
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program &
Economic Development Initiative
http://www.hud.gov/progdesc/cdbg-108 .html
Paul Webster
Office of Block Grant Assistance in
HUD's Office of Community Planning and
Development
451 7th Street SW, Room 7180
Washington, DC 20410
(202) 708-3226
Economic Development Initiative
(EDI)/Brownfields EDI (BEDI)
www.hud.gov/progdesc/brownf.html
Paul Webster
(202) 708-3226
Empowerment Zones and Enterprise
Communities Initiative
http://www.hud.gov/cpd/ezec/ezeclist.html
Community Connections (general information):
1-800-998-9999
It distributes several EZ/EC publications,
including: EZ/EC Program Overview and Fact
Sheet (1995, EN1012)
HUD Brownfield Hotline
1-800-998-9999
HUD Brownfield Web Site
http://www.hud.gov/bfields.html
30
Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
http://www.nps.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides technical assistance for planning, assessment, and conservation in urban areas - targeted to
state and local governments and community-based organizations
Q Assists in acquisition of surplus federal lands - targeted to state and local governments
Q Offers financial and technical assistance for community revitalization - targeted to Brownfield
Showcase Communities
THINKABOUT...enhancing brownfieldprojects with parks and open space amenities
Since its inception in 1916, the National Park Service (NPS) has provided planning and technical
assistance for community-based conservation efforts. NPS recently has expanded its core mission to
support state and local conservation and redevelopment activities outside the boundaries of the parks.
In July 1996, the Department of Interior, through its Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance
Program (RTCA), signed a memorandum of understanding with EPA to work cooperatively on initiatives
promoting sustainable community-based environmental conservation and brownfield redevelopment.
NPS also participates in the Interagency Working Group.
Technical Assistance Through the RTCA Program
The RTCA Program supports state and local governments and community organizations in
conservation efforts by providing river, trail, and greenway planning; regional assessment; and
conservation workshops and consultations. Much of RTCA's assistance is targeted to urban areas for
projects that include or affect underutilized contaminated properties. As such, RTCA can complement
brownfield redevelopment efforts.
Four RTCA project areas to support conservation efforts (urban area projects, trails and greenway
projects, rails-trails projects, and river projects) may be used concurrently with redevelopment efforts.
An example of RTCA's involvement is its recent agreement with EPA to support the development of
Groundwork/USA, which is "a network of locally-controlled community corporations working to
increase the capacity of communities to improve long-term support for abandoned inner-city industrial
sites with likely contamination and for other derelict lands."
Technical Assistance Through the Federal Lands-to-Parks Program
The NPS helps states and local governments acquire, at no cost, surplus federal lands (including
excess lands from decommissioned military bases). NPS identifies which lands have high natural,
historic, or recreational values, and then assists communities gain title to the lands. Land or buildings
obtained through this program must be open to the public and used exclusively for parks and recreational
purposes.
Financial and Technical Assistance in Brownfield Showcase Cities
NPS is involved actively in a number of brownfield showcase cities, including Kansas City, MO;
Salt Lake City, UT; Lowell, MA; Trenton, NJ; and Providence, RI. The agency provides both financial
and technical assistance for redevelopment and community revitalization projects.
Northeast-Midwest Report 31
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Contact
Steve Morris
U.S. Department of Interior
National Park Service
P.O. Box 37127
Washington, DC 20013-7127
(202)565-1183
Fax: (202) 343-3682
stephen_morris@nps .gov
Tom Ross
U.S. Department of Interior
National Park Service
P.O. Box 37127
Washington, DC 20013-7127
(202)565-1180
Fax: (202) 565-1204
tom_ross@nps .gov
Recreation Resources Assistance Division
National Park Service
Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program
P.O. Box 37127
Washington, DC 20013
(202)565-1200
32 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U.S. Department of Justice
http://www.usdoj.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides conflict resolution services and training - targeted to all brownfield community stakeholders
Q Assists in crime prevention and improving the community climate through neighborhood restoration
and crime prevention - targeted to local governments for community use
issues
THINKABOUT...using community outreach services to address site and neighborhood stigma
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) does not have a specific brownfield reuse program, but it
supports for initiatives that encourage redevelopment and works with the brownfield showcase
communities.
Community Relations Service
The Community Relations Service works to prevent and resolve community conflicts and to
reduce community tensions arising from actions, policies, and practices perceived to be discriminatory on
the basis of race, color, or national origin. Service staff, who are located in ten regional offices and three
field offices around the country, provide conflict resolution services, training for community leaders and
members in effectively dealing with minority communities and allegations of discrimination, and data
gathering.
Weed and Seed Program
The Weed and Seed Program (W&S) tries to eliminate crime related problems in distressed
communities. The program's law enforcement and community policing elements make up the "weed"
portion, while the prevention, intervention, treatment, and neighborhood restoration elements comprise
the "seeds." It is the program's seed portion that may indirectly affect redevelopment by promoting
revitalization activities in distressed areas where brownfields are located. In fiscal 1998, W&S is
addressed roughly 140 community sites.
Contact
Karen Wardzinski
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 4390
Washington, DC 20044-4390
(202)514-0474
Fax:(202)514-4231
karen.wardzinski@usdoj .gov
Community Relations Service
http ://www.usdoj .gov/crs/crs_off.htm
Rose M. Ochi
Director, Community Relations Service
U.S. Department of Justice
600 E Street, NW, Suite 2000
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 305-2935
Fax: (202) 305-3009
Executive Office for Weed and Seed
http://www.ojp.usdoj .gov/eows
Office of Justice Programs
810 7th Street NW, 6th Floor
Washington, DC 20531
(202)616-1152
Fax:(202)616-1159
Northeast-Midwest Report
33
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U.S. Department of Labor
http://www.dol.gov
BROWNFIELD LINK
Q Offers technical assistance in job training in Brownfield Showcase Communities - targeted to state
and local governments
THINK ABOUT...using training services as a cashflow offset incentive to companies locating at
brownfield sites
While the U.S. Department of Labor does not have a brownfield initiative, its mission
complements local redevelopment efforts, which require workers who are trained and skilled to handle
environmental cleanup and sustainable redevelopment of brownfield properties. The department recently
signed a memorandum of understanding with EPA to establish mutually consistent programs supporting
brownfield redevelopment.
Job Training and Technical Assistance
The Department of Labor will provide job training expertise and help coordinate Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) programs in brownfield communities. To this end, it offers technical assistance to
the brownfield showcase communities. State or local governments interested in job training technical
assistance should contact the department's relevant regional administrator.
Contact
Robert Rann
U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Policy and Research
200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 5637
Washington, DC 20210
(202)219-7674
Fax:(202)219-5455
rannr@doleta.gov
Steve Wander
U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Policy and Research
200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 5637
Washington, DC 20210
(202)219-5677
Fax:(202)219-5455
wandners@doleta.gov
34 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Transit Administration
http://www.fta. dot.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides grants for transit capital and operating assistance - targeted to local transit agencies in
urban and nonurban areas
Q Offers discretionary capital assistance for fixed guideway systems and bus-related facilities - targeted
to local governments
Q Funds transportation and land-use planning - targeted to metropolitan planning organizations,
through the states
Q Promotes delivery of safe and effective public and private transportation in non-urban areas -
targeted non-urban local governments, through the states
THINKABOUT...enhancing site marketability with transit access...planning for and cleaning up sites
used for transportation purposes
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides financial and technical assistance to local
transit systems. Since most brownfields are located in high-density, urbanized, and industrial areas, FTA
and the Department of Transportation can play a role in local redevelopment efforts.
The department's brownfield policy, announced in April 1998, provides that "states, localities,
and transit agencies are provided the flexibility to participate, where appropriate, in transportation
projects that include the reuse of brownfield sites." The department also declared that transportation
funds may now be utilized to advance brownfield redevelopment activities, provided these activities are
related to transportation programs. While the new policy does not target financing toward brownfields,
funding for cleanup is available through the Federal Highway Program and the Federal Transit Program,
as long as it is part of a transportation project.
Urbanized Area Formula Grants
These grants provide capital and operating assistance to transit agencies in urban areas with
populations of 50,000 people or more. The required matching ratio is 80 percent federal share/20 percent
local share. For each year from fiscal 1998 to 2000, the program obtained $3,657,000.
Non-Urbanized Area Formula Grants
These grants provide capital and operating assistance through the states to transit operators in
non-urban areas with populations of less than 50,000 people. Under this program, a state must use a
percentage (5-15 percent) of the funds it receives for inter-city bus service unless the state can certify that
its inter-city bus needs have been met. The program in each fiscal year from fiscal 1998 to 2000 received
$145 million.
Discretionary Capital Program
This program provides discretionary capital assistance for construction of new fixed guideway
systems, extensions to fixed guideway systems, buses and bus-related facilities. The program's 1998 total
was $1,479 million. For fiscal 1999, guideway modernization received $896.0 million; new starts
obtained $896.0 million; and bus initiatives received $497.6 million.
Northeast-Midwest Report 35
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Metropolitan Planning Funds (Section 5303)
These funds are apportioned to each state on the basis of urban area population. The states pass
the funds through to the 339 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in urban areas with populations
of over 50,000. The supported planning processes encompass studies of transportation needs and
demands, land use, economic, employment and demographic trends, and the cost effectiveness of
alternative services and facilities. To be eligible for federal funding, a transportation project must be part
of the regional Transportation Long-Range Plan and included in the region's Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Funding was $39,625,587 for fiscal 1998 and $43,901,198 for fiscal 1999.
Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP)
This program promotes delivery of safe and effective public and private transportation in non-
urban areas and develops national rural transportation resources to aid in information dissemination.
Administered through the states, it emphasizes private-sector involvement and safety initiatives in rural
transit.
State Planning and Research Program (Section 5313)
This formula-allocated program supports state-initiated technical activities associated with urban,
suburban, and rural public transportation assistance, including planning, research, technical assistance and
training, and the development of a statewide transportation plan and state transportation improvement
plan.
Joint Development
Transit agencies may lease land and air rights at stations to other parties, and they may sell
portions of transit property and retain the proceeds. Under certain circumstances, transit agencies may
use federal funds to participate in construction elements of private and public development. Joint
developments must be physically and functionally related to transit use and beneficial to the transit
system.
FTA Transit-Community Initiatives
FTA encourages locally-directed land use policies and urban design that strengthen the link
between transit and communities. Under the Transit-Oriented Development and Livable Communities
Initiatives, FTA encourages local jurisdictions, when using their allocated transit funds, to emphasize
pedestrian access, safety, community service facilities, and aesthetics in engineering and design of
stations and immediately surrounding areas.
36 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Contact
Linda Lawson
Office of the Secretary
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 7th Street SW, Room 10228
Washington, DC 20590
(202) 366-4835
Fax: (202) 366-7618
linda.lawson@ost.dot.gov
Susan Borinsky
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Transit Administration
400 7th Street, SW, Room 6100
Washington, DC 20590
(202)366-0811
Fax: (202) 493-2478
susan .borinsky@fta. dot.gov
Urbanized Area Formula Grants
http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/legal/factsp 1 .htm
Robert Stout
Director
Office of Planning Operations
(202) 366-6385
Non-Urbanized Area Formula Grants
http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/legal/factsp3.htm
Robert Stout
Director
Office of Planning Operations
(202) 366-6385
Formulized Grants for the Elderly and Persons
with Disabilities
http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/legal/factsp4.htm
Robert Stout
Director
Office of Planning Operations
(202) 366-6385
Discretionary Capital Program (Section 5309)
Patricia Levine
Director
Office of Resource Management and State
Programs
(202) 366-2053
Metropolitan Planning Funds (Section 5303)
Patricia Levine
Director
Office of Resource Management and State
Programs
(202) 366-2053
Welfare to Work
Access to Jobs, Training & Support Services
http://www.fta.dot.gov/wtw/ats/ats.html
Job Access and Reverse Commute Grant
Program
http://www.fta.dot.gov/wtw/
Doug Birnie
Office of Research Management
(202) 366-1666
douglas.birnie@fta.dot.gov
A TDD is available at 1-800-877-8339
(TDD/FIRS)
Northeast-Midwest Report
37
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
http://www.fhwa. dot.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides grants that can be used to study transportation strategies related to brownfield
redevelopment - targeted to state and local governments and metropolitan planning organizations
Q Funds transit projects - targeted to state governments
Q Funds transportation projects that reduce air emissions - targeted to state and local governments and
metropolitan planning organizations
THINKABOUT...using FHWA resources to cover some cleanup, planning and/or development costs,
freeing up resources for other purposes...or to provide transportation related amenities that enhance
site value
The Federal Highway Administration (FFiWA) helps fund the construction and maintenance of
Interstate highways and other roads. Typical programs of the Federal-Aid Highway Program include road
widening and reconstruction; building new roads, transportation centers, intermodal facilities and
recreational facilities and recreational trails; access improvements; bridge replacement or rehabilitation;
and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.
Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program (TCSP)
TCSP provides funding that "can be used to examine transportation strategies that relate to
brownfields redevelopment, such as planning access to redeveloped brownfield sites, upgrading exiting
urban transportation systems, and connecting local community members to new brownfield-related jobs."
The Department of Transportation will provide technical assistance, training, and guidance to state and
local governments, and to MPOs in order help access funding and ensure that brownfields are included in
transportation planning. The program is authorized a total of $120,000,000 for fiscal years 1999 to 2003.
Individual grants will vary in size depending upon the number of proposals received by the Department of
Transportation. Congress earmarked all funding for fiscal year 2001 to specific projects.
Surface Transportation Program
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds may be used either for highway or transit at the
discretion of state and local officials. Highway funds also can be used for transit projects that reduce
congestion and improve air quality. FHWA allocates funds to states through a legislatively-determined
formula.
Transportation Planning
FHWA helps metropolitan planning organizations develop long-range transportation plans that
consider changes in future population and traffic patterns, as well as predict the economic and
infrastructure changes needed to support these changes.
Transportation Enhancement
Transportation enhancement efforts support facilities for pedestrian and bicycles, historic
rehabilitation and preservation, landscaping, archeological planning and research, control and removal of
outdoor advertising, acquisition of scenic easements and sites, and mitigation of water pollution and
38 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
highway runoff.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
Through CMAQ, FHWA funds eligible transportation projects, giving preference to programs
with documented emission reductions from a transportation control measure.
Contact
Constance Hill
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590
(202)366-9196
Fax: (202) 366-3409
connie .hill@fhwa.dot.gov
Federal Highway Administration
Metropolitan Planning Division
400 7th St SW HEP-20 Rm 3232
Washington DC 20590
Phone: 202-366-0182
FAX: 202-366-3713
Federal Transit Administration
Metropolitan Planning Division
400 7th St SW TPL-12 Rm 6106
Washington DC 20590
Phone: 202-366-6385
FAX: 202-366-3765
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
http ://www. fhwa. dot.gov/environment/cmaq .htm
Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot
http://tcsp-fhwa.volpe.dot.gov/index.html
Felicia Young
felicia.young@fhwa.dot.gov
(800)488-6034
Northeast-Midwest Report 39
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
U.S. Department of Treasury
http://www.ustreas.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Offers tax incentives to leverage private investment in brownfield cleanup and redevelopment -
targeted to private sector entities
Q Provides financing tools and incentives to stimulate private-sector investment in blighted
communities - targeted to private sector entities
Q Provides guidance and facilitates partnerships for community reinvestment - targeted to federally
chartered commercial banks; bank examiners; and private sector entities
THINK ABOUT...promoting the cashflow advantages of tax incentives...promoting the financial and
public relations advantages of participating in brownfield redevelopment to lenders
The Department of the Treasury became more active on redevelopment issues with the 1997
passage of a brownfield tax incentive. The incentive, combined with the Treasury's Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund, can help stimulate investment by the private sector in
communities with brownfields.
Brownfields Tax Incentive
Effective January 1, 1998, taxpayers may fully deduct environmental cleanup costs for properties
in certain "targeted areas." Specifically, the statute provides that "a taxpayer may elect to treat any
qualified environmental remediation expenditure which is paid or incurred by the taxpayer as an expense
which is not chargeable to capital account. Any expenditure which is so treated shall be allowed as a
deduction for the taxable year in which it is paid or incurred." Prior to the statute's enactment,
environmental cleanup costs were required to be capitalized. The statute defines these targeted areas to
include:
• any population census tract with a poverty rate of not less than 20 percent;
• any population census tract with a population of less than 2,000 if
- more than 75 percent of such tract is zoned for commercial or industrial use, and
- such tract is contiguous to one or more census tracts with a poverty rate greater than 20
percent;
• any empowerment zone or enterprise community (and any supplemental zone designated on
December 21, 1994); and
• any site announced before February 1, 1997, as being included as a brownfield pilot project of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
A property also must meet certain specified land use, contamination, and certification
requirements. For instance, the statute expressly excludes contaminated sites that are listed on the
Superfund National Priorities List.
The brownfield tax incentive is set to terminate on January 1, 2001. However, several legislative
proposals have been advanced to both extend the provision, and broaden its applicability to any
brownfield site.
40 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
The Community Development Financial Institution Fund (CDFI)
The Treasury's CDFI Fund also indirectly affects brownfield redevelopment activities. Intended
to "promote economic revitalization and development in distressed urban and rural communities
throughout the United States," the fund increases accessibility to investment capital by providing the
private sector with leverage capability and strategic investments. CDFI is designed to stimulate private-
sector investment in the nation's blighted communities, many of which include brownfield properties.
Three awards programs are part of the CDFI Fund: the Community Development Financial
Institutions (CDFI) Program; the Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program; and the Presidential Awards
for Excellence in Microenterprise Development. In 1998, the Community Development Financial
Institution Fund made 190 awards for a total of $75 million.
The CDFI Program promotes economic and community revitalization by providing an array
of innovative financing tools to private-sector financial institutions that will help strengthen
lending capabilities. Since 1996, the CDFI Fund has made $182 million available to
institutions;
The BEA Program provides financial incentives to traditional financial institutions, such as
regulated banks and thrifts. These incentives are intended to encourage investment in and
lending to community redevelopment projects in blighted communities. The BEA Program
has awarded $30 million to these institutions; and
• The Presidential Awards for Excellence in Microenterprise Development encourages
innovative advancements in microenterprise development in depressed communities by
presenting non-monetary awards in recognition of the best practices in the field.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — Community Development Division
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) supervises nearly 3,600 federally-chartered
commercial banks, which account for approximately 60 percent of the assets of the commercial banking
system. OCC can and has been proactive in providing guidance to these lending institutions on
involvement with brownfields, through, for example, publications such as its Commercial Real Estate and
Construction Lending Handbook. The Community Development Division advises the Comptroller on
policy matters involving community development activities of national banks, including welfare
investment requests, and it provides bankers with education and guidance on community economic
development issues permissible under the National Bank Act.
OCC also has a community reinvestment and development specialist program that facilitates
partnerships; provides technical assistance for banks and their community partners; and encourages
investment, lending, and services to low- and moderate-income individuals and small businesses. Two
specialists are in each of the OCC's six geographic districts who have experience in affordable housing,
advocacy, community and economic development, small business lending, and bank examination. They
provide training and advice to national banks, communities, and bank examiners regarding best practices,
options for satisfying CRA responsibilities, and expanding access to credit and capital. The Community
Development Division's web site is http://www.occ.treas.gov/cdd/contacts.htm.
Northeast-Midwest Report 41
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Contact
Lettie Shapiro
U.S. Department of Treasury
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Community Development Division
250 E Street, SW
Washington, DC 20219
(202) 874-4940 Fax: (202) 874-5566
lettie. shapiro@occ .treas.gov
Cliff Kellogg
oo
U.S. Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20220
(202) 622-5732
Fax: (202) 622-5672
cliff.kellogg@treas. sprint, com
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
http: //www .treas .gov/cdfi/index.html
601 13th Street NW, Suite 200 South
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 622-8662
Fax: (202) 622-7754
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Community Development Division
http://www.occ.treas.gov/cdd/contacts.htm
42 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Department of Veterans Affairs
http://www.va.gov
BROWNFIELD LINK
Q Provides job training and technical assistance in hazardous materials management - targeted to
disabled veterans
THINK ABOUT...using these training resources in applicable projects to support cleanup services
The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) can help veterans of the armed forces by providing
employment training and technical assistance. Under a memorandum with the EPA, the department
provides some training resources for brownfield initiatives. DVA also has shown an interest in
redevelopment because many brownfields are close to DVA hospitals.
Vocational Rehabilitation & Counseling Program (VRCP)
This program provides training and technical assistance to disabled veterans in order to ensure
that they attain suitable employment to achieve independence. Among other things, VRCP provides
technical job training in hazardous materials management and environmental technical assistance —
both of which develop skills that are applicable to brownfield redevelopment efforts. Thirty patients a
year per facility are eligible, and DVA will pay a patient's wages during the training period.
Partnership Opportunities
DVA will promote partnerships with local community colleges, training agencies, labor unions,
Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) programs, and direct transitional work placements with local cities
and environmental companies.
Contact
Vocational Rehabilitation & Counseling Program
David Walton
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Office of Policy and Planning
MC: 008A
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
(202)273-5061
Fax: (202) 273-5993
david.walton@mail.va.gov
Northeast-Midwest Report 43
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
http://www.fdic.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Ensures equal access to credit - targeted to all brownfield community stakeholders
Q Promotes public-private partnerships and identifies local credit needs - targeted to local
governments; bankers; community-based organizations; and businesses
Q Sponsors seminars on community reinvestment and fair lending laws - targeted to bankers and
consumers
Q Provides a web site on FDIC-owned, potentially contaminated properties - targeted to all
brownfield community stakeholders
THINKABOUT...using FDIC to provide brownfield credibility to prospective lenders... linking
prospective developers with potential sites
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) tries to maintain stability within the
nation's insured depository banking and savings associations. It works with other federal and state
regulatory agencies to identify potential threats to the deposit insurance funds, and it makes information
and analysis available to promote sound financial and economic decision making. Several FDIC
initiatives impact financing for brownfield redevelopment efforts.
Community Affairs Program
This initiative, created in 1990 to comply with the Community Reinvestment Act and the fair
lending laws by FDIC-supervised institutions, helps to ensure equal access to credit, works with lenders
and the public to revitalize communities, and serves as an intermediary to further fair lending
objectives.
Partnership Promotion and Support Services
The FDIC meets regularly with bankers, community organizations, small businesses, and local
government leaders to promote partnerships among public and private organizations, to identify local
credit needs, and to develop strategies to meet those needs.
Conferences and Seminars
The FDIC sponsors and conducts conferences and seminars to help educate bankers and
consumers about the Community Reinvestment Act and other fair lending laws and regulations.
Contact
Michael Hein
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
801 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20434
(202) 898-6729
Fax: (202) 898-8917
Mhein@fdic.gov
Consumer Affairs Program
http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/affairs/index.html
(800) 934-3342, (202) 942-3100
44 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Federal Housing Finance Board
http://www.fhfb.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Funds community-oriented mortgage lending for targeted economic development - targeted to
banks, for a variety of site users
Q Encourages banks to engage in new types of lending to meet housing and economic development
needs - targeted to banks
Q Subsidizes interest rates and loans to increase the supply of affordable housing - targeted to banks
Q Funds the purchase of taxable and tax-exempt bonds to support redevelopment - targeted to banks
THINKABOUT...using FHFB to attract more lenders to specific brownfieldprojects
The Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB), founded as an independent agency in 1989,
ensures the integrity of the Federal Home Loan Bank System and ensures that resources are available
for home financing and commercial and economic development activities. The system is divided into
12 district banks, which are government-chartered, member-owned corporations. These district banks
provide long-term loans to its member financial institutions, which then advance these loans to
individuals or entities in the community for residential mortgages and economic development activities,
including brownfield redevelopment projects. The district banks provide their members with a variety
of loan programs that address housing and development needs.
Community Investment Program
This loan program provides funding for housing and economic development activities. It has
been used by member institutions to finance brownfield redevelopment projects. The program supports
community-oriented mortgage lending that can be used to target commercial and economic
development projects in economically-disadvantaged neighborhoods that include brownfield sites.
Since 1990, the Federal Home Loan Banks have advanced more than $1.4 billion for such commercial
and economic development projects. Many recipients use these monies in conjunction with additional
funding provided through other federal agencies, such as the Small Business Administration. The
program's fiscal 1999 funding level was $459.5 million.
Housing Credit and Economic Development Regulations
The Community Investment Cash Advance Programs (CICA) and the Federal Home Loan Bank
Standby Letters of Credit (LOG) are regulations intended to address unmet housing credit and economic
development needs. Both encourage banks to engage in new types of lending, including activities that
otherwise are available for consideration under the Brownfields Tax Credit Program. The Federal
Housing Finance Board anticipates the regulations will reduce costs associated with contaminated
properties and aid in their resale.
Cash Investment Advance Programs (CICA)
The CICA regulation seeks to attract long-term financing for economic development in urban
and rural areas not presently being addressed. The rule specifically provides that economic
development projects include property eligible for a federal brownfield tax credit.
Northeast-Midwest Report 45
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Federal Home Loan Bank Standby Letters of Credit (LOC)
The LOC regulation provides the Federal Home Loan Banks with additional flexibility to use
letters of credit for economic development projects that include brownfield redevelopment.
The Affordable Housing Program (AHP)
The AHP subsidizes the interest rates for advances (loans) and provides direct subsidies to
member institutions of the Federal Home Loan Bank System engaged in lending for long-term, very-
low, low, and moderate-income, owner-occupied, and affordable rental housing. The program
encourages member institutions to undertake creative efforts that increase the supply of affordable
housing. The program's fiscal 1999 funding was $193.3 million, with approximately $130 million
available in fiscal 1998.
Support for Local Financing
The Federal Home Loan Banks purchase qualified taxable bonds, the proceeds of which can be
used for brownfield development in selected communities. The banks can offer advances to member
institutions to buy tax-exempt bonds to fund eligible costs involved in brownfield reuse projects.
Contact
Charles McLean
Office of Communications
Federal Housing Finance Board
1777 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 408-2537
Fax:(202)408-2915
Doug Ryan
Federal Housing Finance Board
Office of Housing Finance
1777 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 408-2996
Fax:(202)408-2915
ryand@fhfb .gov
Community Investment Program
Melissa Allen
Program Assistance Division
Office of Policy
(202) 408-2974
http://www.fhfb .gov/FHLBP_housing_CI.htm
Affordable Housing Program
Jennifer Salamon
Program Assistance Division
Office of Policy
1777 F Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20006.
(202) 408-2848
http://www.fhfb .gov/FHLBP_housing_affordable
.htm
46
Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
General Services Administration
http://www.gsa.gov
BROWNFIELD LINK
Q Works with local communities to determine how federal properties can support revitalization -
targeted to all brownfield community stakeholders
THINK ABOUT... incorporating former federal facilities into larger projects, to take advantage of site
assessment resources
As the official real estate agent of federally owned properties, General Services Administration
(GSA) plays a key role in brownfield redevelopment activities on and around these federally-owned
lands. In addition, GSA owns and manages a large number of contaminated properties across the
country. GSA's Brownfields Redevelopment Initiative targets underutilized federal properties that can
be redeveloped to maximize revitalization efforts in local communities. The agency has committed
over a million dollars to assess and conduct environmental surveys that aid redevelopment efforts on
identified properties. The GSA Brownfields Initiative includes three initiatives: community
involvement, partnering, and technology support.
Community Involvement
GSA is engaged in redevelopment activities in 38 cities, the Everglades area in Florida, and
Puerto Rico. It has entered into cooperative discussions with local public officials, developers, and
environmental organizations in each of these areas in order to determine community needs and whether
or not the utilization of federal properties would bolster community revitalization activities.
Partnering
GSA exchanges information on brownfield-related matters with a variety of state and federal
agencies. It has signed a memorandum of understanding with EPA to jointly promote economic
development, community revitalization, and brownfield redevelopment.
Technical Support
GSA utilizes a geographic information system (GIS) to analyze information on underutilized
federal properties and to consider a variety of factors that impact urban revitalization.
Contact
John Q. Martin
General Services Administration
Office of Property Disposal
GSA Building
18th and F Streets NW, Room 4340
Washington, DC 20405
(202) 501-4671
Fax:(202)501-2520
johnq.martin@gsa.gov
Northeast-Midwest Report 47
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Small Business Administration
http://www.sbaonline.sba.gov
BROWNFIELD LINKS
Q Provides technical assistance for redevelopment efforts - targeted to businesses in Brownfield
Showcase Communities
Q Offers loan guarantees to support small businesses - targeted to businesses through lending
institutions and certified development corporations
Q Assists in development managing and marketing skills - targeted to minority-owned small
businesses
THINK ABOUT...enhancing lender comfort with loan guarantees
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) assists, supports, and advocates for the interests
of entrepreneurs and small businesses. SBA has offices in every state that provide financing, training,
and counseling for small businesses. To be eligible for assistance, the SBA requires that a small
business be "independently owned and operated, not dominant within its field," and that it meet certain
size standard requirements.
While present SBA loan programs do not specifically target brownfields, the agency has stated
that its programs may be used by small businesses for projects that affect redevelopment projects,
provided the small business meets SBA criteria for the particular loan program.
Loan Guarantee Program
This program helps small companies get started, expand, and prosper. Its goal is to increase the
amount of capital available to small businesses through the commercial banking community and non-
bank lending institutions. In fiscal 1999, $9.47 billion in guaranteed authority was available for general
business guarantees through the Section 7(a) program. In addition, SBA has adopted a "Low Doc" (for
low documentation) approach to Section 7(a) loan guarantees to encourage more lenders to handle
smaller SBA-backed loans of less than $100,000. The program features a 2-page application and a
rapid response from SBA - often, just a few days.
Section 504 Certified Development Company (CDC) Program
The Section 504 program helps small businesses finance acquisition of land, buildings, and
machinery, as well as construction, renovation, and expansion of existing facilities, the program is
operated through nearly 300 SBA-licensed CDCs nationwide, which perform credit analyses,
recommend loan approvals, and close and service the loans they initiate. The CDCs sell debentures to
support up to 40 percent of the project costs, as a type of second mortgage financing, while private
lenders provide at least 50 percent (and take a first mortgage position). The remaining 10 percent
comes either from the facility owners, or through public sector participation; many communities have
used their HUD Community Development Block Grant funds for this purpose. The typical Section
504-supported loan is about $300,000. In fiscal 1999 the Section 504 appropriation was $1.98 billion.
Economic Development Program
This program manages a statewide network office counseling and low-cost training resources
designed to help existing small business owners, as well as new start-ups. A directory and order form
for SBA publications and videos are available upon request.
48 Northeast-Midwest Report
-------
Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs
Minority Enterprise Development Program
The initiative assists minority small business owners to develop managerial and marketing
skills in order to succeed and grow. Eligible recipients include any business that is at 51 percent owned
and managed by a racial or ethnic minority person/s; meets SBA 7(a) size standards and general
eligibility criteria; is not engaged in speculation or investment in rental real estate; and is for-profit
and/or non-religious organization. The program received $2.6 million in fiscal 1999.
Additional Programs for Small Business
Several other programs are available to the small business community relating to brownfield
redevelopment, including Veterans Business Ownership; PRO-Net System; Surety Bond Guarantee;
Small Business Innovation & Research; International Trade Assistance; and Export Working Capitol
Loan Program. Information on these initiatives can be accessed at the SBA web site.
Contact
Joan Bready
Small Business Administration
409 3rd Street, NW
8th Floor
Washington, DC 20416
(202) 205-7384
Fax: (202) 205-7727
joan.bready@sba.gov
Northeast-Midwest Report 49
-------
using the
CLEAN WATER STATE
REVOLVING FUND
for Brownfields and USTfields
TRACY Noi
A PUBLICATION OF THE
NORTHEAST-MIDWEST
-------
The Northeast-Midwest Institute is a Washington-based, private, non-profit, and non-partisan research
organization dedicated to economic vitality, environmental quality, and regional equity for Northeast
and Midwest states. It fulfills its mission by conducting research and analysis, developing and advancing
innovative policy, providing evaluation of key federal programs, disseminating information, and highlight-
ing sound economic and environmental technologies and practices.
The Institute is unique among policy centers because of its work with the bipartisan Northeast-Midwest
Senate and Congressional Coalitions, co-chaired by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Jack Reed (D-RI),
and Representatives Marty Meehan (D-MA) and Jack Quinn (R-NY). The Institute also provides staff sup-
port for the Senate and House Great Lakes Task Forces, the Congressional Task Forces on Manufacturing,
the Upper Mississippi River Task Force, the Senate Smart Growth Task Force, and the House Sustainable De-
velopment Caucus.
The Institute organized the first national conference on brownfield cleanup and reuse in Chicago in June
1991. It also published New Life for Old Buildings: Confronting Environmental and Economic Issues to Industrial
Reuse; Industrial Site Reuse, Contamination, and Urban Redevelopment; Brownfields: Cleaning and Reusing Conta-
minated Properties; Coming Clean for Economic Development; and Lessons from the Field: Unlocking Economic
Potential with an Environmental Key, and has co-authored The Effects of Environmental Hazards and Regulation
on Urban Redevelopment and Brownfields Redevelopment: A Guidebook for Local Governments and Communities.
Institute staff have participated in community brownfield coalitions in Chicago and Baltimore and testified
in congressional hearings. The Institute also organized a series of community forums on local brownfield
needs in Cleveland, Kalamazoo, Pittsburgh, Detroit, East Chicago, Burlington, and Lowell.
Tracy Norfleet is a policy analyst at the Northeast-Midwest Institute, focusing on water issues related to
brownfields, agriculture, and ecosystem restoration. Prior to joining the Institute, Ms. Norfleet worked for
the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Water. Ms. Norfleet has a Masters of Regional Planning
from Cornell University, and she received her BS in biology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign with a concentration in ecology and a minor in chemistry.
Copyright © 2002 by Northeast-Midwest Institute
ISBN: 1-882061-92-6
This publication is the sixth in a series that was made possible by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The
statements, findings, and recommendations are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. Reproduction of this report, with the customary credit to the source, is permitted.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS [
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 B
USING THE CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND FOR f
BROWNFIELDS AND USTFIELDS •
Linking Brownfields/USTfields and Water Quality 5 F
Using CWSRF Loans for Brownfields 6 f
Ohio's Brownfields Finance Partnership Identifies the CWSRF as a B
Funding Source 7 |
New York Bond Act Links Brownfields and Water Quality 9 •
New Mexico's Integrated Priority Rating System Includes Brownfields 10 i
Wisconsin Links Its CWSRF and Land Recycling Loan Programs 11 |
Using CWSRF Loans for USTfields 11 |
1
Case Studies of CWSRF Loans for Brownfields and USTfields 12 |
Mahoningside Power Plant, Warren, Ohio 12 F
Hemisphere Corporation and the Stickney West Industrial Park, Toledo, Ohio 12 b
For More Information 14 |
APPENDIX I: I
THE CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND: A PRIMER ^
What is the Clean Water State Revolving Fund? 15 F
How is the CWSRF Capitalized? 16 F
What Types of Financial Assistance are Available Through the CWSRF? 16 |
What Types of Water Quality Projects are Eligible for CWSRF Loans? 17 |
•
How Can State CWSRF Programs Vary? 17 |
Agency Lead 17 P
Eligible Entities 17 L
Loan Terms 18 |
Project Eligibility 18 P
How Do States Allocate CWSRF Money Among Eligible Water Quality Projects? 18 j"
•
-------
What are the Responsibilities of CWSRF Loan Recipients? .......................... 20 |
•
What are the Responsibilities of State CWSRF Programs? ........................... 22 |
Intended Use Plans [[[ 22 jl
Annual Reports [[[ 22 L
Annual Audits [[[ 22 |
•
What are EPA's Responsibilities Under the CWSRF? ............................... 23 |
•
How is the CWSRF Fiscally Innovative? .......................................... 24 |
Leveraging [[[ 24 F
Layers of Security [[[ 24 b
Transfers Between the CWSRF and DWSRF .................................. 25 |
Linked-Deposit Loans [[[ 25 P
Using Local Governments as Conduits ....................................... 25 g
What Have Been the Benefits of the CWSRF? ...................................... 25 |
What Can Be Done to Improve the CWSRF? ...................................... 27 •
Encourage All States to Fund Nonpoint Source Pollution Control and Estuary i
Management Projects or Offer Incentives for Voluntary Program Expansion ....... 27 F
Include Brownfields and USTfields in Future Clean Water Needs Surveys ......... 28 g
Encourage All States to Use Integrated Planning and Priority Setting Systems ..... 28 |
Extend the Maximum Duration of CWSRF Loans to 30 Years or the Life of F
the Project [[[ 28 L
Make Permanent States' Ability to Transfer Funds Between the CWSRF i
and DWSRF [[[ 28 B
Increase Federal Appropriations ............................................. 28 |
For More Information on the CWSRF ............................................ 28 I
APPENDIX II: CWSRF CONTACTS AND WEB SITES
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
l~phe Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
1 can be an important source of funding for proj-
ects at contaminated sites that threaten water qual-
ity. States have begun using the CWSRF for these
projects in recognition that assessing and cleaning
up potentially contaminated sites not only fosters
community redevelopment, but also can provide
significant water quality benefits.
In 1987, amendments to the Clean Water Act cre-
ated the CWSRF to fund projects that protect and re-
store water quality, including publicly owned treat-
ment works (POTWs), nonpoint source pollution
control, and estuary management. Under the pro-
gram, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) provides capitalization grants to states, which
are required to match them at a minimum of 20 per-
cent. States use these funds to assist public and pri-
vate entities in carrying out state-determined prior-
ity water quality projects. The most common form of
financial assistance has been loans with an interest
rate from zero to the market rate and a repayment
period of up to 20 years.
To obtain a CWSRF loan, an applicant typically
must get the project on the state's project priority list
and submit a loan application and any other paper-
work that may be required by the state. Once a proj-
ect has been selected, loan terms and the method of
loan repayment can be negotiated, construction can
begin, and the loan can be disbursed. As outstand-
ing loans are repaid, states 'revolve' the CWSRF by
using this money to issue new loans for other prior-
ity water quality projects. Thus, the combination of
annual capitalization grants to states from EPA, re-
quired state matches, and CWSRF loan repayments
has ensured a perpetual and growing source of
CWSRF funds for priority water quality projects.
USING THE CWSRF FOR
BROWNFIELDS AND USTFIELDS
In states that allow loans for projects other than
POTWs, the CWSRF can be a critical financial re-
source for assessing and remediating brownfields
and USTfields where water resources are threatened.
Brownfields are real property, the expansion, rede-
velopment, or reuse of which may be complicated
by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant. USTfields are
sites containing one or more abandoned under-
ground storage tanks (USTs), which typically store
petroleum products such as fuel, oil, and solvents,
but also may store hazardous substances. The effect
of these sites on water quality can depend on the fol-
lowing variables:
i i type, concentration, and distribution of contami-
nants on the site;
: i whether and how contaminants are contained;
n proximity of contaminants to groundwater or
surface water;
i i potential for transporting contaminants through
soils to groundwater or to surface waters by
stormwater runoff and wind; and
LJ percentage of impervious surface on and adjacent
to the site and the presence of vegetation or other
stormwater management measures on the site
that could retain or slow the rate of stormwater
runoff.
Conventional funding sources alone cannot meet
the demand for assessing and remediating USTfield
sites. Although in fiscal 2003, EPA will be able to de-
vote 25 percent (up to $50 million) of its brownfield
grants to petroleum-contaminated sites, as many as
200,000 of these sites may contain abandoned USTs
or be contaminated by UST leaks. EPA estimates
there are approximately two million USTs nation-
wide. Given the scope of the problem, the CWSRF
could be invaluable for financing the assessment
and cleanup of USTfields that threaten water quality.
Depending on the state's approach, brownfield
and USTfield remediation projects could be eligible
for CWSRF loans under Title VI as nonpoint source
pollution control projects. Potentially eligible activi-
ties may include:
n assessment and remediation of petroleum con-
tamination, including excavation and disposal
(but not replacement) of USTs;
• Phase I, II, and III assessments for brownfield
showcase communities, pilots, and in other loca-
tions at a state's discretion;
: i excavation, removal, and disposal of contami-
nated soil or sediments;
-------
ii capping of wells or soil;
: : tunnel demolition;
'ii monitoring of groundwater or surface water for
contaminants; and
: : stormwater management and abatement of pol-
luted runoff from a brownfield site.
Several states have expanded their CWSRF pro-
grams to fund the water quality portions of brown-
field remediation projects, typically under the non-
point source pollution category. Since brownfields
are more prevalent in older, industrialized cities,
states in the Northeast and Midwest are most likely
to have expanded or to consider expanding their
programs. However, few have actually issued loans
for brownfields. Ohio and New York have been the
leaders to date, with other states beginning to follow
their lead.
: : Ohio issues loans for brownfield assessment and
cleanup through its Water Pollution Control Loan
Fund, administered by the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency. The loans are available to both
municipalities and private entities, particularly
those participating in the state's Voluntary Action
Program.
: : New York's Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act of
1996 made the connection between brownfields
and water quality, establishing a $200-million
fund to provide grants to municipalities to cover
up to 75 percent of costs for brownfield and UST-
field site investigation and remediation activities,
including cleanup of contaminated soils and
water. The CWSRF is recognized as an important
source of additional funds for these projects.
ii New Mexico's CWSRF program recently updated
its integrated priority rating system to include
brownfield redevelopment among three compo-
nents, along with point source pollution and non-
point source pollution. This reflects the program's
expansion to offer loans to eligible cities, counties,
water and sanitation districts, and Indian tribes to
investigate and remediate brownfields.
: : Maryland's CWSRF program considers USTfield
remediation to be an eligible project under the
general goal of encouraging individuals to imple-
ment capital improvements that reduce nutrient
loading in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and en-
sure safe drinking water.
i i Wyoming's State Lands and Investments Board
(SLIB) and Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) have worked together to provide approxi-
mately $45 million in CWSRF loans for site inves-
tigations and corrective action contamination
cleanup work at over 400 publicly-owned UST-
fields. The SLIB receives the annual capitalization
grant, which DEQ matches at 20 percent using
funds from the state's UST Corrective Action Ac-
count—derived from a tax of one cent per gallon
on oil, gas, and special fuels sold or distributed in
Wyoming.
Processes and requirements can vary among state
CWSRF programs that fund brownfield and UST-
field projects. For example, a state may require that
at the time of application the brownfield or USTfield
property be owned by a municipality that is not re-
sponsible for any contamination on the site. How-
ever, a state may allow privately-owned property to
qualify for a CWSRF loan if the property owner par-
ticipates in the state's brownfield voluntary cleanup
program. Also, the maximum loan amount or repay-
ment period may differ from those of other types of
projects. In addition, a CWSRF loan must have a
dedicated source of repayment at the time the loan is
made, and it should not be based on the speculative
success of placing the redeveloped brownfield or
USTfield on the real estate market.
Because states have great flexibility in administer-
ing their CWSRF programs, they may be able to
modify program requirements in certain cases or in
response to sufficient public demand. For example,
if the CWSRF does not currently fund brownfield
and USTfield projects, brownfield and USTfield ad-
vocates may ask CWSRF program administrators to
suggest other programs that may provide funding
and inquire if they would consider funding this type
of project in the future. If a state does fund brown-
field and USTfield projects but cannot make loans to
private entities, brownfield and USTfield advocates
may ask CWSRF program administrators to identify
other ways for private entities to acquire funding or
to consider expanding their program to fund private
entities.
-------
USING THE CLEAN WATER STATE
REVOLVING FUND FOR BROWNFIELDS
AND USTFIELDS
rT-he Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
1 can be an important source of funding for
brownfield and USTfield projects that will protect
or restore water quality. States have begun using
the CWSRF for these projects in recognition that
assessing and cleaning up potentially contami-
nated sites not only fosters community redevelop-
ment but also can provide significant water qual-
ity benefits. (Appendix 1 describes the CWSRF
program in detail)
Title VI of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as
amended in 1987, created the CWSRF. Administered
by states and overseen by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the CWSRF provides fi-
nancial assistance other than grants to public and
private entities for projects that protect and restore
water quality, including publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs), nonpoint source pollution control,
and estuary management. Under the CWSRF, EPA
provides annual grants solely to states. States match
these capitalization grants at a minimum of 20 per-
cent and use the funds to provide financial assis-
tance other than grants to public and private entities
for state-determined priority water quality projects.
The most common form of financial assistance has
been loans with interest rates that vary from zero in-
terest to market rate, with repayment periods of up
to 20 years.
To obtain a CWSRF loan, an applicant typically
must get the project on the state's project priority list
and submit a loan application and any other paper-
work that may be required by the state. Once a project
has been selected, loan terms and the method of loan
repayment can be negotiated, construction can begin,
and the loan can be disbursed. As outstanding loans
are repaid, states 'revolve' the CWSRF by using this
money to issue new loans for other priority water
quality projects. The combination of annual capital-
ization grants to states from EPA, required state fund
matches, and CWSRF loan repayments has ensured a
perpetual and growing source of CWSRF funds for
priority water quality projects.
LINKING BROWNFIELDS/USTFIELDS
AND WATER QUALITY
In states that allow loans for projects other than
POTWs, the CWSRF can be an important source of
funding for assessing and remediating brownfields
and USTfields that threaten water quality. Brown-
fields are real property, the expansion, redevelop-
ment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the
presence or potential presence of a hazardous sub-
stance, pollutant, or contaminant. USTfields are sites
containing one or more abandoned underground
storage tanks (USTs), which typically store petro-
leum products such as fuel, oil, and solvents, but
some store hazardous substances.1 Until the mid-
1980s, many USTs were made of steel, which if not
properly maintained can corrode, leak, and contami-
nate soils and surface water or groundwater.2 Conta-
minated brownfields and USTfields can threaten
water quality, depending on the following variables:
n type, concentration, and distribution of contami-
nants on the site;
i i whether and how contaminants are contained;
LJ proximity of contaminants to groundwater or
surface water;
: i potential for transporting contaminants through
soils to groundwater or to surface waters by
stormwater runoff and wind; and
n percentage of impervious surface on and adjacent
to the site and the presence of vegetation or other
stormwater management measures on the site that
could retain or slow the rate of stormwater runoff.
In many states, the most significant USTfield
problems stem from abandoned sites (many leaking
USTs are located on brownfields) or facilities with
owners that are not able to pay for cleanup. UST
leaks can threaten groundwater and nearby surface
waters with contamination from petroleum prod-
ucts, including methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE),
a gasoline additive. MTBE's high solubility in water
and small molecular size enables it to move rapidly
-------
through groundwater as a result of leaks or spills,
and therefore it has been detected in groundwater
and surface water with increasing frequency
throughout the United States.3
The CWSRF could be a critical financial resource
for assessing and cleaning up USTfields where water
resources are threatened because conventional brown-
field funding alone cannot meet the demand at these
sites. In fact, until the passage of the Brownfields Re-
vitalization Act in 2002, EPA's brownfield program
could not address USTs at all because the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Li-
ability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund) does not cover
the cleanup of contamination from petroleum-based
products. Starting in fiscal 2003, EPA will be able to
devote 25 percent (up to $50 million) of its grants to
petroleum-contaminated sites. However, of the ap-
proximately 450,000 brownfields nationwide, EPA
Brownfield and USTfield Site
Assessments
Phase I, II, and III assessments are the primary vehicles for
gathering information needed to begin remediation. A
Phase I assessment is a process in which existing data is re-
viewed to identify potential sources and distribution of con-
tamination on a site (if any), including reviewing business
practices and documents, reviewing agency files, conduct-
ing employee interviews, researching prior uses and activi-
ties at the site, and conducting site inspections to identify
areas of obvious or potential contamination.
If contamination is suspected, investigators conduct a Phase
II assessment in which samples are collected from soil,
groundwater, and sediments and analyzed based on Phase I
information. While Phase II assessments can confirm con-
tamination at a site, they cannot necessarily determine the
extent of contamination, something that is needed to deter-
mine costs of cleanup. Consequently, a Phase III assessment
is performed in which samples are taken to identify contam-
ination boundaries, which may be an iterative process. Once
contamination has been delineated, a plan with several al-
ternatives and cost options for remediation is drafted as part
of the Phase III assessment (also referred to as an action plan
or response plan).
Source: Environmental Law Institute, A Guidebook for Brownfield Property Own-
ers, 1999, http://www.eli.org/pdf/rrguidebook99.pdf
estimates that between 100,000 to 200,000 of these
sites may contain abandoned USTs or be contami-
nated by UST leaks.4 Given the scope of the problem,
the CWSRF could be invaluable for financing assess-
ment and cleanup of brownfields and USTfields that
threaten water quality.
Depending on the state's approach, brownfield
and USTfield remediation projects could be eligible
for CWSRF loans under Title VI as nonpoint source
pollution control projects. Potentially eligible activi-
ties may include:
• assessment and remediation of petroleum con-
tamination, including excavation and disposal
(but not replacement) of USTs;
• Phase I, II, and III assessments for brownfield
showcase communities, pilots, and in other loca-
tions at a state's discretion;
• excavation, removal, and disposal of contami-
nated soil or sediments;
• capping of wells or soil;
• tunnel demolition;
•i monitoring of groundwater or surface water for
contaminants; and
• stormwater management and abatement of pol-
luted runoff from a brownfield site.5
Processes and requirements can vary among state
CWSRF programs that fund brownfield and UST-
field projects. For example, a state may require that
at the time of application the brownfield or USTfield
property be owned by a municipality that is not re-
sponsible for any contamination on the site. How-
ever, a state may allow privately-owned property to
qualify for a CWSRF loan if the property owner par-
ticipates in the state's brownfield voluntary cleanup
program. Also, the maximum loan amount or repay-
ment period may differ from those of other types of
projects. In addition, a CWSRF loan must have a
dedicated source of repayment at the time the loan is
made, and it should not be based on the speculative
success of placing the redeveloped brownfield or
USTfield on the real estate market.
USING CWSRF LOANS FOR
BROWNFIELDS
Several states have expanded their CWSRF pro-
grams to fund the water quality portions of brown-
field remediation projects, typically under the non-
-------
point source pollution category. Since brownfields
are more prevalent in older, industrialized cities,
states in the Northeast and Midwest are most likely
to have expanded or considered expanding their
programs. However, few have actually issued loans
for brownfields, partly due to the newness of the
concept and partly due to institutional barriers that
states are just beginning to identify and address.
Ohio and New York have been the leaders in issuing
CWSRF loans for brownfields, with other states such
as New Mexico and Wisconsin beginning to follow
their lead.
Ohio's Brownfields Finance Partnership
Identifies the CWSRF as a Funding Source
Ohio issues loans for brownfield assessments and
cleanups through its CWSRF program, known as the
Water Pollution Control Loan Fund (WPCLF). The
WPCLF is administered by the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). The loans are avail-
able to both municipalities and private entities, par-
ticularly those participating in the state's Voluntary
Action Program (VAP). Initiated in 1994, VAP en-
courages individuals, businesses, and political sub-
divisions to voluntarily investigate potentially con-
taminated properties. Where cleanup is needed, they
may use engineering, financial, and other tools to re-
mediate the site in a way that is tailored to the future
use of the property6 Once the site has been investi-
gated and remediated and the VAP participant has
received a no-further action letter from a certified
professional, Ohio EPA may audit a portion of the
property and issue a legal release from further
cleanup (i.e., a covenant-not-to-sue7).
To promote and encourage participation in the
VAP, representatives from state agencies and profes-
sionals in finance, law, and environmental science
established the Brownfields Finance Partnership to
identify and coordinate sources of public and pri-
vate funding for brownfield activities and provide
guidance for those seeking funding.8 They identified
the WPCLF as a potential funding source for brown-
fields where surface water and groundwater are
threatened. The prospective WPCLF loan recipient
does not necessarily have to be a participant in the
VAP as long as the work performed directly benefits
surf ace/groundwater.9 WPCLF loans for brown-
fields cannot exceed $3 million per project, and the
loan period cannot exceed ten years. Eligible projects
include Phase I and II assessment activities (e.g. lit-
erature searches, site evaluation studies, sampling,
monitoring, and laboratory tests) and remediation.10
Like CWSRF programs in other states, Ohio's
WPCLF offers loans at varying interest rates and du-
rations, with lower interest rates for small and disad-
vantaged communities, short- term loans, and special
projects dealing with municipal compliance mainte-
nance, water conservation, and construction of non-
conventional technologies. Wastewater and nonpoint
source pollution projects, including brownfields and
USTfields, are both eligible for funding as long as
they benefit water quality and are listed in the state's
Nonpoint Source Management Plan.11
Ohio EPA also offers linked-deposit loans to pri-
vate organizations and individuals for nonpoint
source projects (especially agricultural best manage-
ment practices), upgrading failed on-lot wastewater
treatment systems, urban stormwater runoff control,
stream corridor restoration, and forestry and land
development best management practices. To assist
prospective WPCLF loan recipients with the listing
and application process, Ohio EPA has compiled The
WPCLF Community Guide: a User's Guide to the Ohio
Water Pollution Control Loan Fund for Publicly-Owned
Treatment Works and Nonpoint Source Improvements.12
(More information on linked-deposit loans can be
found on page 25 in Appendix 1.)
WPCLF loans can enable businesses to expand on
formerly contaminated property. For example, when
Liniform Services could not obtain private financing
for a Phase II site assessment on property adjacent to
its dry cleaning facility, Ohio EPA provided a five-
year WPCLF loan of over $60,000. The loan, with an
interest rate of approximately 3 percent, financed
Phase II investigation activities, including soil and
groundwater sampling. Once the assessment and
subsequent cleanup were complete, Liniform Ser-
vices received a covenant-not- to-sue from Ohio EPA
through the VAP, enabling facility expansion to pro-
ceed. The loan will be repaid using a revenue stream
from accounts receivable, with inventory and cash
as extra collateral.13
In Cleveland, the WPCLF funded a brownfield
cleanup prior to site redevelopment. Grant Realty
purchased the 20-acre former Sunar-Hauserman
Company site to build a centrally- located corporate
headquarters, despite environmental assessments
showing that soil and groundwater had been con-
taminated with solvents. A $1.6-million WPCLF
loan, at an interest rate of approximately 4 percent,
-------
New York State CWSRF Program
rT~'he New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (NYSEFC) is the lead agency for New
1 York's CWSRF program. Since the program's inception in 1990, NYSEFC has issued more than $5.7
billion in CWSRF loans to approximately 370 communities for the planning, design, and construction
of projects that reduce or prevent water pollution. Only municipalities—including cities, towns, vil-
lages, and counties, as well as local authorities, public benefit corporations, and improvement dis-
tricts—are eligible for CWSRF funding. A municipality must own the property prior to investigation
or remediation, and a project's primary purpose must be water quality protection or restoration. Inel-
igible costs include building demolition, recreational activities, and replacement of aboveground and
underground storage tanks.
Like other state programs, NYSEFC offers short- and long-term loans with varying interest rates for el-
igible projects. Short-term loans have a maximum duration of three years and are interest-free. Their
primary purpose is to enable municipalities whose projects are listed in the Multi-Year Project Priority
List of the CWSRF Intended Use Plan (IUP) to begin the design and construction of water quality proj-
ects or to prefinance costs that will be reimbursed from grants from other funding sources or other
loans. The project also may be required to be determined to be environmentally significant by the
Commissioner of the NYSDEC, have completed the state's environmental review process for CWSRF
projects, have an approved engineering or technical report once project planning is complete, and if
applicable, have formed a special improvement district.
Short-term loans cannot be used for projects where construction is complete, for advanced refundings, or
for the acquisition of wastewater treatment and/or conveyance facilities. More information on short-term
loans can be found online at http://www.nysefc.org/srf/CWSRF/ DocsOO/ShortTermLoanPolicy.PDF.
There are two types of low-interest long-term loans: leveraged loans (from CWSRF bond proceeds)
and direct loans (from CWSRF resources). The maximum duration for either type of loan is 30 years.
The interest rate for most communities can be one-half to two-thirds of the market interest rate at
which NYSEFC bonds are sold. Municipalities must secure the loan with general obligation bonds.
To obtain a long-term CWSRF loan, municipalities must have a project listed in the annual IUP Project
Priority List. However, listing in the IUP and submission of an application do not guarantee funding.
To list a project, a municipality must submit a complete Project Listing Form which includes a project
description, estimated project cost, and estimated construction start date. Once a project is listed in the
state's IUP, the complete loan application can be submitted, which may include:
• a completed application checklist;
• a technical/engineering report;
• a loan application form with municipal resolution authorizing the application;
• evidence of environmental review pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR);
• if special district formation is needed, then approval from the State Comptroller;
• municipal bond resolution;
• certification as to title to project site;
• Minority/Women Business Enterprise and Equal Employment Opportunity documents;
• agreements for professional services;
• a notice to proceed; and
• financial information and reports to the borrower.
Sources: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Environmental Restoration/Brownfields Program web site,
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/der/bfieldfs.html; NYSEFC, CWSRF Program Fact Sheet, May 21, 2001; NYSEFC, CWSRF Guid-
ance for Eligible/Allowable Costs Fact Sheet, http://www.nysefc.org/srf/CWSRF/eligible.htm; NYSEFC, CWSRF Eligibility of Non-
point Source Projects Fact Sheet
-------
covered the cost of treating contaminated subsurface
soil and groundwater. The repayment source came
from a tank-cleaning operation, with personal loan
guarantees and a second position mortgage as addi-
tional collateral. With assistance from the Cuyahoga
Brownfields Pilot Program, Grant Realty applied to
Ohio's VAP for a covenant-not- to-sue and was is-
sued a 'no further action' letter.14
New York Bond Act Links Brownfields
and Water Quality
New York's Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act of
1996 made the connection between brownfields and
water quality, establishing a $200-million fund to
provide grants to municipalities to cover up to 75
percent of costs for brownfield and USTfield site in-
vestigation and remediation activities, including
cleanup of contaminated soils and water.15 In many
cases, Bond Act funds can be combined with the En-
vironmental Protection Fund (EPF) and other state
resources, such as the CWSRF.16
Although New York's CWSRF is not part of the
Bond Act or EPF, it is recognized as an additional
source of funding for municipal water quality proj-
ects, including brownfield and USTfield remediation.
For example, the CWSRF can be used to prefinance
design and construction costs prior to reimbursement
of the state share from the Bond Act. It also can fund
the local share (non-grant portion) of site investiga-
tion and remediation, and it may cover certain costs
that are not eligible for funding under the environ-
mental restoration/brownfields fund created by the
Bond Act.17
Brownfield and USTfield projects potentially are
eligible for CWSRF funding as long as the purpose is
to investigate or remediate hazardous substances or
petroleum on a site where water quality may be
threatened. Municipalities cannot be responsible for
any contamination on the site, and the site cannot be
listed as a Class 1 or 2 site on the New York State
Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites.
For projects involving groundwater remediation,
treated water must be returned to the environment
and cannot be used for potable water.
For USTfields, the closure of aboveground or un-
derground storage tanks containing petroleum or
other materials is fully eligible for CWSRF funding,
although tank replacement is not. Related eligible ac-
tivities include soils and sludge testing and disposal;
pumping and disposal of tank contents; removal and
disposal of tanks and pipelines; in-place closure by
filling with sand, concrete, or other approved materi-
als; excavation and filling with clean soils; groundwa-
ter treatment; and site restoration. Upgrading and re-
habilitating existing tanks also are eligible, including
measures to prevent corrosion, groundwater monitor-
ing systems, replacement of deteriorated pipes and
associated equipment, leak monitoring systems, sec-
ondary containment systems, tank cleaning prior to
repair or reconditioning, reconditioning by installing
a new liner, and welding, lining, coating, and other
sealing measures to reduce leaks.
Over the years, several municipalities have re-
ceived Bond Act and CWSRF funds for Phase I site
investigations for brownfields and USTfields but
have not proceeded with Phase II site assessments or
cleanup. Other municipalities have expressed inter-
est in seeking Bond Act and CWSRF funding for in-
vestigating or redeveloping brownfields/USTfields,
but have chosen not to pursue a CWSRF loan. The
state recently has begun to identify and address po-
tential barriers in both programs that may have lim-
ited their use for brownfields/USTfields projects.18 It
is important to note that these potential barriers may
exist in other states as well, but New York has been
among the first to identify and address them.
First, since only municipalities are eligible for
Bond Act and CWSRF funds, the programs are not
accessible to private entities seeking to remediate
brownfields and USTfields, including some partici-
pants in the state's Voluntary Cleanup Program,
nonprofits, and community brownfield/USTfield
advocates. The New York State Legislature would
have to amend the Bond Act to expand its eligibility.
To expand access to the CWSRF, New York could
pass legislation to implement linked-deposit loan
programs through local banks or authorize local
governments as conduits for loans to private enti-
ties. The state legislature has considered allowing
such loans for brownfields, as well as failing septic
systems and land acquisition, but such proposals
have not yet passed. (More information using local
governments as conduits can be found on page 25 in
Appendix 1.)
A second barrier is the requirement under both the
Bond Act and the CWSRF that municipalities must
own the brownfield or USTfield site prior to site as-
sessment/investigation. If a site is not already munici-
pally-owned, the costs of acquiring it can increase
project costs. In addition, many municipalities may be
-------
unwilling to acquire a brownfield or USTfield site be-
fore an investigation is performed because of the risk
of having to pay for a potentially expensive cleanup.
Furthermore, property ownership can incur other lia-
bility and safety concerns that are not related to con-
tamination, including security, insurance, and other
measures to protect the public from injury on the site
(especially if it is relatively accessible) and protect the
municipality from liability. The New York State Legis-
lature is considering a proposal to remove the prop-
erty ownership requirement from the Bond Act, based
on the premise that it would encourage municipalities
to investigate sites (and provide useful information to
the state) and give them the flexibility to purchase
only the sites that they are sure they can afford to re-
mediate. Municipalities can begin the application
process for a CWSRF loan while they are acquiring a
site, but they are required to have the title prior to
loan disbursement.
Finally, municipalities may be discouraged by the
requirement to repay Bond Act grants if the property
is sold, and to repay CWSRF loans even when a
property is kept for municipal uses, such as open
space or parkland. For brownfield and USTfield
projects, the potential costs of acquiring sites, per-
forming investigations, and remediating any con-
tamination can be prohibitive, especially when cou-
pled with the possibility of failing to recover costs
by selling the remediated and/or redeveloped prop-
erty. These issues can be particularly challenging for
small and disadvantaged communities, those under-
taking projects with uncertain costs at the time of
application, and those that do not wish to secure
CWSRF loans with municipal bonds. A proposed
amendment to the Bond Act that would allow a mu-
nicipality that sells a remediated site to recoup its
costs for the remediation, with the remainder of the
proceeds (if any) going to the state. For CWSRF
loans, New York has eased the difficulty of repay-
ment by providing a repayment period for long-
term loans of 30 years, whereas most other states
allow only 20 years.
New Mexico's Integrated Priority Rating
System Includes Brownfields
New Mexico's CWSRF program administrators re-
cently updated its integrated priority rating system to
include brownfield redevelopment, along with point
source pollution and nonpoint source pollution.19 The
integrated priority rating system reflects the pro-
gram's expansion to offer loans to eligible cities, coun-
ties, water and sanitation districts, and Indian tribes
to investigate and remediate brownfields. (More in-
formation on integrated priority ranking systems can
be found on page 18 in Appendix 1.)
The program calculates the brownfield redevel-
opment component based on a redevelopment po-
tential factor and a water quality preservation factor.
The redevelopment potential factor is based on the
following criteria:
i i whether the level of contamination at the site
poses a potentially unacceptable risk to human
health or the environment;
n whether a redevelopment/revitalization plan has
been developed with the support of the municipality;
i i whether the redevelopment project has attracted
investors;
LJ whether the site is located in a federal Enterprise
Community, a state Enterprise Zone, a state historic
district, or an environmental justice community;
: i whether the site is located within a mile of a
major transportation artery and/or industrial/
commercial complex;
n whether the site has been abandoned for three or
more years.
If a project is not a brownfield, then the value of
this component is zero.
The point source pollution component pertains to
POTW-related projects. It is calculated from equa-
tions that estimate the severity of pollution or public
health threat from discharges to surface water or
groundwater, the number of people that could be af-
fected by the project, and the level of water quality
preservation conveyed by the project. If a project is
not a POTW, then the value of this component is
zero.
The nonpoint source pollution component is cal-
culated from equations that estimate a project's need
based on water quality data and the severity of pol-
lutants to be addressed in the project; project merit
(e.g. whether the project will solve a water quality
problem and whether there is a measure of success
upon completion of the project); and whether the
project provides opportunities for outreach to the
public, partnerships between public and private en-
tities or agencies and private landowners, and pub-
lic education and volunteering. If the project is a
POTW, then the value of this component is zero.
1O
-------
The values of the three com-
ponents—brownfields redevel-
opment, point source pollution,
and nonpoint source pollu-
tion—are added together to pro-
duce the priority ranking num-
ber for the project. Projects are
then ordered by their priority
ranking numbers. However, pri-
ority ranking does not guaran-
tee CWSRF funding.
By May 2002, two municipal-
ities had expressed interest in
acquiring CWSRF funding for
brownfield projects and were
included on the state's project
priority list. One project is a 50-
acre former railyard where
groundwater contamination is
an issue, and redeveloping the
site is a priority under the city's
master plan. The second project
is a former mining area of ap-
proximately 1,320 acres where
uncontained tailings threaten
groundwater.
New Mexico's
integrated priority setting
system includes a
brownfields redevelopment
component which is based
on a redevelopment
potential factor and a
water quality preservation
factor.
Wisconsin Links Its CWSRF and Land
Recycling Loan Programs
In 2001, Wisconsin's state legislature authorized a
one-time diversion of $20 million from the state's
2001 CWSRF capitalization grant to the Department
of Natural Resources' Land Recycling Loan Fund for
low-interest loans to municipalities that wish to in-
vestigate and remediate brownfields where water
quality has been affected. By May 2002, two landfill-
related loans had been issued, and several munici-
palities had expressed interest in acquiring CWSRF
loans for brownfield and USTfield projects that
threaten water quality.
USING CWSRF LOANS FOR
USTFIELDS
Delaware, Maryland, Nebraska, New York, Ohio,
and Wyoming have used the CWSRF to fund the re-
mediation of leaking aboveground and under-
ground storage tanks. These states have incorpo-
rated USTfields into their CWSRF programs in
several ways.
For example, Maryland's
CWSRF program considers
USTfield remediation to be an
eligible project under the gen-
eral goal of encouraging indi-
viduals to implement capital
improvements that reduce nu-
trient loading in the Chesa-
peake Bay watershed and en-
sure safe drinking water.20 In
seeking sources of low-interest
financing for capital improve-
ments, a 1994 "Governor's Blue
Ribbon Panel Report on Fund-
ing the Chesapeake Bay 40 Per-
cent Nutrient Reduction Goal"
specifically recommended ex-
panding the use of the state's
CWSRF program. In 1997, the
Maryland General Assembly
amended the law governing
this program to allow the
Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) to provide
low-interest loans to private en-
tities for eligible, nonpoint
source pollution control proj-
ects, and a second amendment in 1998 allows loans
through the linked-deposit program. Although MDE
has funded no UST remediation projects to date, a
private developer in Baltimore has applied for a
low-interest linked-deposit loan of $1 million
through a commercial bank. This loan would help
cover the costs of redeveloping a 78-acre abandoned
oil storage facility in downtown Baltimore where va-
cant oil tanks may threaten groundwater and the
Baltimore Harbor.
In Wyoming, the State Lands and Investments
Board (SLIB) and the Wyoming Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality (DEQ) have worked together to
provide approximately $45 million in CWSRF loans
for site investigations and corrective action contami-
nation cleanup work at over 400 publicly-owned
USTfields. The SLIB receives the annual capitaliza-
tion grant, which DEQ matches at 20 percent using
funds from the state's UST Corrective Action Ac-
count (CAA). CAA funds are derived from a tax of
one cent per gallon on oil, gas, and special fuels sold
or distributed in Wyoming.21 The SLIB then loans
this money to DEQ to pay contractors for USTfield
11
-------
site investigations and cleanups. DEQ provides proj-
ect oversight and reports to the EPA regional office
and headquarters. Loans are repaid through CAA
funds, which are then typically revolved as loans for
wastewater projects.22
The Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control's Division of Water Re-
sources (Financial Assistance Branch) has worked
with the Division of Air and Waste Management's
Underground Storage Tank Branch to fund two UST
remediation projects at a gas station ($5000) and a
convenience store ($250,000). Each year, the state
budgets $250,000 for USTfield projects, but because
no applications were received for USTfields in 2001,
the money was applied to other projects.
CASE STUDIES OF CWSRF LOANS
FOR BROWNFIELDS AND USTFIELDS
Mahoningside Power Plant, Warren, Ohio
In Warren, Ohio, a partnership among the town and
Ohio EPA, several other state agencies, EPA Region
V, and private contractors is cleaning up and rede-
veloping a prime downtown site known as the for-
mer Mahoningside Power Plant. The site is one of
more than 20 brownfields at the intersection of two
industrial/commercial corridors targeted by Warren
for redevelopment. One of the corridors—the River
Edges-New Environment for Warren (RENEW)—is
an EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration
Pilot.23 Part of the project financing includes a ten-
year WPCLF loan of approximately $1.3 million at
3.75 percent interest to clean up a waterfront brown-
field that threatened the nearby Mahoning River.
The approximately seven-acre Mahoningside site
was first developed in the 1880s as a water and light
company. There were several different owners until
the site was abandoned over 25 years ago, passing
ownership to Warren. The building on the site has a
deep open basement through which the Mahoning
River was diverted to generate power for former op-
erations. This presents a public safety hazard since
the building is not secure and the site is relatively
accessible. In addition, most of the contamination on
the site is in or near the basement, adversely affect-
ing water quality in the Mahoning River. Environ-
mental assessments carried out by private contrac-
tors and Warren showed contamination from
mercury, asbestos, and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), which are suspected carcinogens.
The $1.3 million WPCLF loan, awarded in 1999, is
funding water-quality related aspects of the site
cleanup. Additional state and local funds covered
other cleanup costs, such as the demolition of the
former power plant. However, during demolition in
the spring of 2000, more high-level PCBs were de-
tected in soils and groundwater, requiring city con-
tractors to remove over 400 tons of PCBs and estab-
lish a water treatment system to contain PCBs at the
site by filtering stormwater, groundwater, and water
from cleanup processes. In the fall of 2000, EPA Re-
gion V became involved in the project.
During the course of cleanup, EPA Region V took
sediment samples from a mile-long segment of the
Mahoning River to determine the extent to which
stormwater runoff from the site and lateral move-
ment of contaminated groundwater had led to sedi-
ment contamination. High levels of PCBs were de-
tected in sediment samples taken near the base of
the discharge pipe from the plant and low-level
PCBs in other sediment samples. An EPA Region V
grant of $860,000 financed the removal of this con-
tamination as part of the greater site cleanup.24 As
of May 2002, EPA Region V had removed an addi-
tional 1,700 tons of PCB-contaminated material
from the site and nearly 25 pounds of mercury-con-
taminated debris, which was shipped for treatment
and disposal.
As a result of this public/private partnership, a
public health hazard and eyesore is being cleaned
up, with redevelopment scheduled to begin in late
2002. The city hopes that the property's downtown
location and the construction of a new riverwalk
that will pass through a portion of the site will make
it attractive for commercial and industrial redevel-
opment, provide needed jobs, and contribute to the
overall revitalization of the downtown area.
Hemisphere Corporation and the
Stickney West Industrial Park, Toledo,
Ohio
The Hemisphere Corporation, a brownfield redevel-
opment company, has obtained WPCLF loans total-
ing approximately $3 million to assess and clean up
a 27.5-acre brownfield site in the heart of an area un-
dergoing extensive redevelopment in Toledo. The
site remediation not only will prime the parcel for
redevelopment, but also will remove imminent
threats to groundwater and water quality in Sibley
Creek and the Ottawa River. To help reduce costs,
12
-------
finance the cleanup, and repay
the WPCLF loan, Hemisphere
has devised innovative strate-
gies for deriving income from
the property as cleanup pro-
ceeds.
Although Toledo boasts the
fourth largest port on the Great
Lakes and one of the largest rail-
way centers, redevelopment of
nearly two-thirds of the city's
commercial and industrial real
estate has been hindered by envi-
ronmental concerns, leading to
the cancellation of approximately
25 percent of such transactions.25
To address this and to encourage
development within Toledo, the
city is participating in EPA's
Brownfields Assessment Demon-
stration Pilot program. In 1997,
Toledo received a $200,000 tar-
geted brownfields assessment
grant from EPA. The city used
part of the EPA grant for a Phase
I assessment on a 68-acre com-
mercial/industrial site sur-
rounded by three landfills that
are currently being closed to re-
duce impacts to the nearby Ot-
tawa River. The Phase I assess-
ment determined the former uses
of the site, existing site condi-
tions, and potential threats to water quality. The site
contained over 250,000 tires and 50,000 railroad ties
that posed a fire hazard, over 200 unmarked 55-gallon
drums containing unknown materials, bags of fertil-
izer and pesticides, large piles of automobile parts
and fuel tanks, and a number of USTs.26 The site also
had an illegally filled wetland and a large rundown
building with asbestos contamination. The Phase I as-
sessment concluded that contaminated soils existed at
varying degrees across the property, the site's close
proximity to Sibley Creek and the Ottawa River posed
concerns for water quality, and further investigation
in the form of a Phase II assessment was needed.
In 1999, the Hemisphere Corporation purchased
a 27.5-acre portion of the property, now known as
the Stickney West Industrial Park (SWIP). As part of
the sale, Hemisphere agreed to conduct a Phase II
Although Toledo
boasts the fourth largest
port on the Great Lakes
and one of the largest
railway centers,
redevelopment of nearly
two-thirds of the city's
commercial and industrial
real estate has been
hindered by environmental
concerns.
assessment, remediate the par-
cel in accordance with the Ohio
VAP, and redevelop it. Because
of SWIP's imminent threats to
groundwater and water quality
in Sibley Creek and the Ottawa
River, in the spring of 2000
Hemisphere received a WPCLF
loan of $500,000 to fund a
Phase II assessment. The as-
sessment confirmed suspected
surface soil contamination by
pesticides, heavy metals, and a
variety of organic contami-
nants.27 As required under VAP
rules, it also determined the
cleanup standards at a level
that would enable industrial
activities to resume on the site.
To fund cleanup, Hemi-
sphere has received a second
WPCLF loan of approximately
$2.5 million at approximately
4 percent interest for five years
(extending to ten years if the
loan is not in default), bringing
the total WPCLF funds to ap-
proximately $3.0 million. To
cover additional costs and pro-
vide security for the WPCLF
loans, Hemisphere has worked
with Toledo, Ohio EPA, and the
Ohio Water Development Au-
thority (OWDA), the secondary agency for the
WPCLF that generally acts as a financial adviser to
Ohio EPA for CWSRF loans.
Hemisphere has several innovative strategies to
cut costs and generate funds. The company agreed
to excavate and sell subsurface soils from an uncont-
aminated portion of the site to the city. This material
will be used as part of an engineered cap on a city-
owned landfill located across the street, which the
city wants to close and redevelop as part of its
brownfield initiative. This transaction will provide a
revenue source for Hemisphere and benefits the city
by cost-effectively providing needed capping mate-
rial for the landfill since the source is local.
The resulting excavated area on the site will be
used to operate a licensed construction and demoli-
tion debris (C&DD) landfill. Demolition contractors
13
-------
will be charged to dispose brick and other building
materials in the C&DD landfill, providing Hemi-
sphere with an additional source of revenue. Scrap
tires from the site will be shredded and used as part
of the leachate collection system for the C&DD land-
fill, reducing costs for tire removal. The C&DD land-
fill is anticipated to close in three to five years, after
which the site will be redeveloped as light industry.
Although the project deviated little from regular
WPCLF procedures, Ohio EPA and OWDA needed
additional time to secure the loan because it was is-
sued to a private entity. In addition, Ohio EPA
added an application fee of 0.5 percent of the total
WPCLF loan amount to offset the costs of investigat-
ing security and repayment sources. Repayment
sources for the loan include payment from the city
for the soil needed to cap its landfill, tipping fees
from the C&DD landfill, rental fees from the com-
pleted SWIP project, and settlements between the
city and EPA for environmental liability related to
the site.
As a result of its partnership with Ohio EPA,
OWDA, and Toledo, and its innovative cost-cutting
strategies, Hemisphere has been able to secure funds
for site remediation and redevelopment. The project
also gives demolition contractors a local option for
debris disposal, and Toledo receives inexpensive
cover for its landfill at minimal transportation costs,
and ultimately the benefits from redeveloping a
badly needed commercial/industrial site.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Because the CWSRF is administered by states and
overseen by EPA, brownfield and USTfield advo-
cates are advised to contact state CWSRF program
administrators to find out whether their state funds
these projects. If so, state program administrators
can explain eligibility requirements and identify the
steps needed to acquire CWSRF funding, such as
getting the project on the state's project priority list
and submitting a CWSRF loan application, and
whether restrictions apply. (Appendix II lists
CWSRF contacts for states and EPA's regional
offices and headquarters)
Because states have great flexibility in administer-
ing their CWSRF programs, they may be able to mod-
ify program requirements in certain cases or in re-
sponse to sufficient public demand. For example, if
the CWSRF does not currently fund brownfield and
USTfield projects, brownfield and USTfield advocates
may ask CWSRF program administrators to suggest
other programs that may provide funding and inquire
if they would consider funding this type of project in
the future. If a state does fund brownfield and UST-
field projects but cannot make loans to private enti-
ties, brownfield and USTfield advocates may ask
CWSRF program administrators to identify other
ways for private entities to acquire funding or to con-
sider expanding their program to fund private enti-
ties. This report provides enough policy references,
from EPA and other sources, to help build either case.
14
-------
Appendix I
THE CLEAN WATER STATE
REVOLVING FUND: A PRIMER
WHAT IS THE CLEAN WATER STATE
REVOLVING FUND?
Congress created the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF) in the 1987 amendments to the Clean
Water Act (CWA).28 Title VI of the CWA sets the
guidelines for the CWSRF, which it calls the State
Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund. The
CWSRF is a state-administered and EPA-overseen
program for providing financial assistance other
than grants to public and private entities for projects
that protect and restore water quality, including
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), nonpoint
source pollution control, and estuary management.29
Under the CWSRF, EPA provides annual grants
solely to states. States match these capitalization
grants at a minimum of 20 percent and use the funds
to provide financial assistance other than grants to
public and private entities for state-determined pri-
ority water quality projects. The most common form
of financial assistance has been loans with interest
rates that vary from zero interest to market rate,
with repayment periods of up to 20 years.
To obtain a CWSRF loan, a prospective loan recip-
ient must complete the loan application and any
other paperwork that may be required by the state
(e.g. the application to be listed on a state's project
FIGURE 1.
Key Features of the CWSRF
• There are 51 CWSRF programs (50 states and Puerto Rico) which are administered by states and
overseen by EPA.
• CWSRF loans are issued from a fund comprised of annual capitalization grants, state matches, loan
repayments, and bond proceeds.
• Depending on the state, eligible entities may include towns, counties, conservation districts, and
other public agencies, as well as private parties for certain types of projects.
• Depending on the state, eligible projects may include POTWs, nonpoint source pollution control
(e.g. brownfield and USTfield remediation, control of agricultural and urban runoff, stormwater,
sewer overflow controls), and estuary management projects.
• Although CWSRF programs can vary from state to state, the basic steps to acquire funding in most
states are getting the project listed on a state priority list and submitting a complete CWSRF loan
application.
• Repayment periods can last up to 20 years beginning one year after project completion, with state-
determined interest rates that vary from zero percent to market rate and negotiable repayment
terms and sources.
• The combination of annual capitalization grants to states from EPA, state matches, and loan repay-
ments ensures a growing and perpetual source of funds for water quality projects.
Sources: Adapted from EPA's The Clean Water State Revolving Fund: Financing America's Environmental Infrastructure-A Report of Progress,
EPA 832-R-95-001, May 2001, http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/progress.pdf; and The Clean Water State Revolving Fund: How
to Fund Nonpoint Source and Estuary Enhancement Projects, EPA 909-K-97-001, July 1997,
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/final.pdf
— 15 -
-------
priority list). Once a project has been selected by
state CWSRF program administrators, loan terms
and the method of loan repayment can be negoti-
ated, construction can begin, and the loan can be dis-
bursed. As outstanding loans are repaid, states 're-
volve' the CWSRF by using this money to issue new
loans for other priority water quality projects.
The combination of annual capitalization grants
to states from EPA, required state fund matches, and
CWSRF loan repayments has ensured a perpetual
and growing source of CWSRF funds for priority
water quality projects. Under Title VI of the CWA,
the CWSRF also gives states flexibility in administer-
ing their programs (e.g. determining funding priori-
ties, project eligibility, and loan terms). Therefore,
state programs can vary widely, although they are
accountable to EPA regarding their use of CWSRF
money, the health of the fund, and general compli-
ance with Title VI. Figure 1 (see previous page) sum-
marizes the key features of the CWSRF.
HOW IS THE CWSRF CAPITALIZED?
Starting in 1989, EPA began providing states with
annual grants to capitalize their CWSRF programs
under Title VI. The dollar amount of annual capital-
ization grants varies from state to state per the fund-
ing allocation formula in Title II of the CWA and can
fluctuate from year to year depending on the
amount of money annually appropriated to the
CWSRF by Congress.30
States acquire annual capitalization grants
through annual capitalization agreements they
negotiate with EPA. These agreements are the princi-
pal instrument by which states clarify the roles and
responsibilities of administering agencies and com-
mit to administering their CWSRF programs in ac-
cordance with Title VI. This includes agreeing to ac-
cept capitalization grants, provide a funds match of
at least 20 percent, distribute this money among eli-
gible projects in a timely manner, and comply with
environmental review procedures and other legal
aspects that may apply (e.g. minority and women-
owned business enterprise requirements, equal
employment opportunity documentation), as well
as accounting, auditing, reporting, and fiscal proce-
dures (e.g. payments received and disbursed, as well
as balances at the beginning/end of the fiscal pe-
riod).31 State CWSRF programs can opt to incorpo-
rate organizational and administrative frameworks
and procedures that are expected to remain constant
into an operating agreement, which can then be re-
ferred to in the capitalization grant agreement.32
Upon receiving capitalization grants each year,
states can meet their 20 percent match requirement
through direct appropriation, general obligation
bonds, or revenue bonds.33 States can manage their
CWSRF money in a separate account or as part of a
multi-purpose financial-assistance program that
combines funds from several sources, such as Con-
necticut's Clean Water Fund, New Jersey's Environ-
mental Infrastructure Financing Program, or Wis-
consin's Environmental Improvement Fund.34 If the
account is part of a multi-purpose financial-assis-
tance program, CWSRF money is kept separate from
money for other programs because of the CWSRF's
reporting and environmental review requirements
and other guidelines pursuant to Title VI. Once
states have received their annual capitalization
grants and provided the required 20 percent match,
they must set aside one percent of the total funds or
$100,000 (whichever is greater) for planning pur-
poses.35 Then, they can begin the process of allocat-
ing funds among eligible entities and water quality
projects.
WHAT TYPES OF FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE ARE AVAILABLE
THROUGH THE CWSRF?
Under Title VI, states can:
i i Issue low- or no-interest revolving loans (as noted
in Figure 1).
LJ Buy or refinance the debt obligation of municipal-
ities and intermunicipal and interstate agencies
within the state between zero and market rates.
: i Guarantee, or purchase insurance for, local obli-
gations where such action would improve credit
market access or reduce interest rates.
i i Serve as a source of revenue or security for the
payment of principal and interest on revenue or
general obligation bonds issued by the state if the
proceeds of the sale of such bonds will be de-
posited in the fund.
LJ Provide loan guarantees for similar revolving
funds established by municipalities or intermu-
nicipal agencies.
n Earn interest on fund accounts.
16
-------
7.2 7.2
6.7
4.2
3.6
CWSRF
Interest Rate
'90
'91
'92
Source: EPA, with permission.
i Cover the reason-
able costs of admin-
istering the fund
and conducting eli-
gible activities, up
to four percent of
the total amount of
grant awards.36
Since the CWSRF is
customer-driven and
most demand for
CWSRF money has
come from communi-
ties, the majority of
financial assistance
offered has been in
the form of low- or
no- interest revolving
loans. Figure 2 shows
how the interest rates
on CWSRF loans have
compared to the market rate since 1990.
WHAT TYPES OF WATER QUALITY
PROJECTS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CWSRF
LOANS?
Projects must have a direct link to water quality to
be competitive for CWSRF money. Title VI author-
izes the use of CWSRF funding for the following
types of water quality projects:
i the construction of publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs), as defined in Section 212 of the
CWA;
mi the implementation of nonpoint source pollution
control management programs37 (NSMPs) under
Section 319 of the CWA (includes remediating
brownfields38 and leaking underground storage
tanks39 (USTfields));
i the development and implementation of estuary
comprehensive conservation and management
plans under Section 320 of the CWA.40
The CWSRF can fund only the 'capital' compo-
nent of eligible projects (e.g. wastewater-related con-
struction equipment and activities, planting vegeta-
tion to restore riparian areas, environmental
cleanups), and funds cannot be used for operation
and maintenance or for salaries and equipment out-
side the scope of a project.41
FIGURE 2.
Market Rates vs. CWSRF Interest Rates
Market Rate ^*»,
••,£ 5.6 >
>. 5'8
5.7
'"+..
'£*-,
^+sL
5.8
...*-.
'93
'94 '95
'96
'97
'99
'00
2.4
'01
HOW CAN STATE CWSRF
PROGRAMS VARY?
Agency Lead
Because states have great flexibility in administering
their CWSRF programs, certain aspects can vary
widely from state to state. Generally, a state's envi-
ronmental and natural resources management
agency is the lead agency (e.g. Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation, Department of Natural Re-
sources, Department of Ecology). In some states,
however, the CWSRF lead is a water resources board
(e.g. California, Colorado), a finance authority (e.g.
Arizona, Georgia), the Department of Health (e.g.
Hawaii, North Dakota), or some other state agency
(e.g. Massachusetts Department of the State Trea-
surer, Minnesota Department of Trade and Eco-
nomic Development). Regardless of which state en-
tity takes the lead, it works with related state entities
to administer the CWSRF program.
Eligible Entities
Only public entities are eligible for CWSRF loans
for POTWs, but depending on the state, public and
private entities can be eligible for CWSRF loans for
nonpoint source pollution control and estuary man-
agement projects. Eligible entities may include
municipalities; quasi-municipal entities (e.g. local
public authorities and improvement districts);
17
-------
intermunicipal, interstate, or intergovernmental or-
ganizations; citizens' groups; non-profit organiza-
tions; and individuals (e.g. farmers, gas station own-
ers, and brownfield and USTfield advocates).
However, some states are barred from funding pri-
vate entities by state law. For example, Arizona,
Maine, New York, and Tennessee only consider
CWSRF applications from municipalities (e.g. coun-
ties, cities, towns, villages, and Tribes) and quasi-
public entities (e.g. local public authorities and im-
provement districts).
Loan Terms
CWSRF loan terms may vary widely from state to
state. For example, in Ohio, CWSRF loans for most
projects cannot exceed 20 years, except in the case of
loans for brownfields which cannot exceed 10 years.
Interest rates can vary as well. They can be the same
for every type of project, they can be a percentage of
the state-determined market rate, or they can vary
based on the entity's ability to repay the loan—or in
the case of municipal loan recipients, the ability of
the community to repay the loan. States also deter-
mine whether special loan terms will be offered to
small and disadvantaged communities and if so,
what those terms would be.
For example, New York restricts no-interest loans
to short-term loans, and New Mexico restricts no-in-
terest loans to communities with demonstrated fi-
nancial hardship. Some states also restrict how much
money can be loaned for one project in a year. For
example, New Mexico and Oregon set the maximum
loan amount as a percentage of the total CWSRF
funds available for each year, meaning that the ac-
tual dollar amount can potentially fluctuate from
year to year. Other states such as North Carolina set
the maximum dollar amount that one project can re-
ceive in a fiscal year, and that amount generally re-
mains the same year after year regardless of whether
the capitalization grant allotment fluctuates. Finally,
some states such as Delaware set a minimum loan
amount (e.g. $10,000) and a minimum interest
amount (e.g. 3 percent).
Project Eligibility
Although authorized projects include POTWs, non-
point source pollution control, and estuary manage-
ment, states do not have to fund all three or allocate
a certain percentage of CWSRF funds to any type of
project. Some states fund only POTWs, and others
fund all three types of authorized projects. To date,
30 states have funded nonpoint pollution control
and estuary management projects through the
CWSRF at a level of $1.4 billion, approximately 80
percent of which has been provided over the past
five years. This indicates that in many states, fund-
ing priorities are shifting in favor of water quality
projects other than POTWs.42
Some states have funded both traditional projects
and the water quality portion of non-traditional
projects, or those projects in which the primary pur-
pose is something other than water quality, but as-
pects of the projects protect or restore water quality.
For example, the primary purpose of a new landfill
is solid waste disposal. However, because installing
leachate collection systems, liners, and groundwater
monitoring stations can prevent landfills from ad-
versely affecting water quality, the CWSRF may be
used to fund this portion of the project. Table 1 pro-
vides examples of traditional and non-traditional
projects that can potentially be funded through the
CWSRF.
HOW DO STATES ALLOCATE CWSRF
MONEY AMONG ELIGIBLE WATER
QUALITY PROJECTS?
Under Title VI, states must rank POTWs for funding,
but they are not required to prioritize nonpoint
source pollution control or estuary management
projects.43 States that fund nonpoint source pollution
and estuary management projects, particularly those
in which the cost of eligible projects exceeds CWSRF
funds, have identified a need to evaluate and com-
pare the water quality benefits of all eligible projects
so they can be funded accordingly. To address this,
states have worked with EPA to create a framework
for evaluating the water quality benefits of eligible
projects and prioritize them for funding in a project
priority list (PPL) for a given year.
EPA encourages states that fund nonpoint source
pollution and estuary management projects through
the CWSRF to use integrated planning and priority
setting systems to target water quality problems.
These systems are frameworks for identifying water
quality priorities, assessing the role of the CWSRF in
addressing those priorities compared to other fund-
ing sources that may be available, conducting out-
reach to potential loan recipients, and comparing the
water quality benefits of different types of projects
-------
TABLE 1.
Projects That Can Potentially be Funded Through the CWSRF
TRADITIONAL PROJECTS
Activity
Alleviate the water quality
impacts of brownfields
Alleviate the water quality
impacts of leaking USTs
Remediate the water qual-
ity impacts of existing
landfills
Create and enhance exist-
ing vegetative buffers
(grass, shrubs, and trees)
on stream banks and
shorelines and restore ri-
parian areas
Restore riffle-pool se-
quences and instream flow
in streams, lakes, and estu-
aries
Build manure storage facil-
ities for a non-confined an-
imal feeding operation
Purchase no-till equipment
Replace failing septic sys-
tems
Build stormwater manage-
ment facilities including
sediment basins and con-
structed wetlands
Benefit to Water Quality
Eliminates potential
threats to groundwater
and surface water from
contamination on the site
(if any) and erosion
Eliminates threats to
groundwater from petro-
leum, MTBE, and other
products
Eliminates threats to water
quality from landfill
leachate
Buffers upland runoff
from high flows and pollu-
tant loading and prevents
streambank erosion dur-
ing wet weather
Improves water quality,
enhances habitat for
aquatic life, and increases
the viability of species that
depend on aquatic life
Prevents manure from
contaminating groundwa-
ter and surface water by
containing it
Reduces crop land erosion
and topsoil runoff into
waterways
Reduces threats to
groundwater, surface
water, and drinking water
Reduces impacts to re-
ceiving waters during
wet weather events by
reducing erosion of
streambanks and
streambeds by high flows
and reduce impacts to
water quality by reducing
pollutant loading
WATER QUALITY PORTION OF
NON-TRADITIONAL PROJECTS
Activity
Implement new technolo-
gies such as leachate col-
lection systems, liners, and
groundwater monitoring
when building new land-
fills
Install smokestack
scrubbers
Implement street-sweep-
ing and leaf-removal
programs
Build salt storage sheds to
contain it
Create bird sanctuaries
and other wildlife en-
hancements
Benefit to Water Quality
Protects water resources,
especially groundwater,
from leachate
Reduces air pollution and
the deposition of airborne
pollutants into waterways
and on land where they
can be washed into water-
ways during wet weather
Protects water resources
by collecting waste that
could be washed into wa-
terways through storm
drains during wet weather
Prevents salt from contam-
inating groundwater and
surface water
Provides additional high-
quality habitat for terres-
trial and aquatic wildlife
Sources: EPA, The Clean Water State Revolving Fund Funding Framework,
EPA 832-B-96-005, October 1996, http://www.epa.gov/owm/
cwfinance/cwsrf/framewrk.pdf; EPA, The Clean Water State Revolving
Fund: How to Fund Nonpoint Source and Estuary Enhancement Projects,
EPA909-K-97-001, July 1997, http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/
cwsrf/final.pdf
19
-------
so they can be ranked.44 In 2001,16 states used inte-
grated planning and priority setting systems: Cali-
fornia, Delaware, Idaho, Maryland, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mex-
ico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah, Washing-
ton, and Wyoming.
The first step in a state's integrated planning and
priority setting system is to identify priority water
quality issues and locations. Typically, the lead agency
works with other agencies to review available water
quality information, including national water quality
inventories (CWA Section 305(b) reports), lists of im-
paired waters (CWA Section 303(d) lists), nonpoint
source management plans (CWA Section 319), com-
prehensive conservation management plans (CWA
Section 320), national water information surveys,
unified watershed assessments, watershed plans,
groundwater protection plans, natural resources in-
ventories, and any other available resources.45 Projects
addressing water quality issues in areas of greatest
need may receive higher rankings than other projects,
although this is not always the case.
Once water quality priorities have been identi-
fied, states assess the role of the CWSRF in address-
ing these priorities in light of other funding sources
for wastewater and water quality projects. For exam-
ple, if a state has a large grant program for dairy
best management practices, then this type of project
may not be a CWSRF priority for outreach and fund-
ing because another source of financial assistance is
available. This ensures that the CWSRF comple-
ments other programs and that the common goal of
improving water quality can be advanced to the
greatest extent possible.
Finally, states evaluate the water quality benefits
of all projects that have applied for CWSRF fund-
ing. The 16 states currently using integrated plan-
ning and priority setting systems vary in their ap-
proaches, but they all have methods for scoring
eligible projects either within one category or
across categories, using best professional judge-
ment for completing the annual priority ranking,
and determining whether to reserve funding for
highest priority needs. Some states have attempted
to evaluate projects based on the value of the water
body in question, the threat or impairment to that
water body, and the effectiveness of the project in
addressing water quality problems facing the water
body.46
WHAT ARE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF
CWSRF LOAN RECIPIENTS?
In many states, there are two basic steps to acquiring
CWSRF loans: a project must be included on the
state's project priority list (PPL) and a complete loan
application must be submitted on time. Specific re-
sponsibilities for loan applicants and recipients in-
clude gathering preliminary information, applying
for the loan, negotiating a loan contract agreement,
initiating the project, and repaying the loan accord-
ing to the schedule in the loan contract agreement.47
Loan applicants are advised to establish early
contact with state CWSRF program administrators
to discuss their project and the state's CWSRF loan
application process, including required paperwork
and deadlines. Prospective loan recipients also
should begin gathering the information needed to
apply for a CWSRF loan, which may include the
following:
n required form(s) for getting a project listed on the
state's project priority list and nonpoint source
management plan or estuary management plan;
i i CWSRF loan application form(s);
LJ documentation of water quality benefits of the
project;
: i project-specific documents such as engineering
designs and plans, permits, state agency ap-
provals, record of public involvement, and con-
tract documentation;
i i estimated costs and financial information for the
project such as project capital and operating and
maintenance costs; and
LJ possible dedicated revenue source(s) to repay the
loan.
Maintaining frequent contact after this initial dis-
cussion can ensure that the CWSRF loan application
and any other required paperwork is obtained, com-
pleted accurately, and submitted on time.
Depending on the state, completed loan applica-
tions and associated paperwork are reviewed either
on a rolling basis or after a state-determined dead-
line. States notify loan recipients as their projects are
selected to receive CWSRF funding. Loan recipients
and state CWSRF programs then negotiate loan
terms and repayment options.
Title VI of the CWA requires every CWSRF loan re-
cipient to establish one or more dedicated sources of
2O
-------
FIGURE 3.
Selected Guides and Flowcharts on
the CWSRF Funding Process
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Water Facilities Funding: Water Pollution Con-
trol Manual http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wff/wwmanual.htm.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Securing Financial Assistance through the SRF:
A Guidance Document for Municipalities and Consultants
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-ead-mfs-formsguidance-SRFBook.pdf
New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation web site:
http://www.nysefc.org/srf/CWSRF/CWSRFhome.htm; and
http://www.nycofunding.org/newcofund/waterandsewer.htm
Ohio EPA, Division of Environmental and Financial Assistance, The WPCLF Community Guide:
A User's Guide to the Ohio Water Pollution Control Loan Fund for Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
and Nonpoint Source Improvements http://www.epa.state.oh.us/defa/comguide.html
Utah Department of Environmental Quality, A Community's Guide to the Utah Water Quality Pro-
ject Assistance Program http://www.deq.state.ut.us/eqwq/Con_Asst/comgdl.htm
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, funding process flowchart,
http://deq.state.wy us/wqd/w&ww/SRF/flow.pdf
repayment but does not mandate that the source of re-
payment come from the project itself.48 In the case of
loans to municipalities, dedicated repayment sources
may include special assessments, general taxes, gen-
eral obligation bonds, revenue bonds, user charges, or
other sources, such as:
« developer fees on other properties;
« recreational fees (e.g. park entrance fees, hunt-
ing/fishing licenses);
« dedicated portions of local, county, or state
taxes/fees;
« property owner payments (with ability to repay
determined during the application process);
« contributions or dues made to nonprofit organi-
zations; and
« stormwater management fees and wastewater
user charges.49
The lead agency works with the loan recipients
and in some cases, other state agencies, to identify
options for securing and repaying the loan.
Once loan terms have been agreed upon and a re-
payment source has been identified, a loan contract
agreement is drafted. This legal document commits
CWSRF money for the project and commits the loan
recipient to agreed upon terms and conditions for
carrying out the project and repaying the loan. It
generally consists of the following:
« a loan amortization schedule specifying the antic-
ipated loan principal and interest payments over
time;
« a pledge by the loan recipient to dedicate the
revenue source identified in the loan application;
and
« a certification that the loan recipient will comply
with all CWSRF program requirements.
Loan recipients are advised to review loan con-
tract agreements with an attorney. When all parties
are satisfied with the loan terms, the loan can be
closed, disbursements can begin, and projects can be
initiated.
Throughout the project, loan recipients must be
able to document project costs (e.g. contractor in-
voices) and provide documentation that funds have
been properly spent. Loan repayments begin based
on the final loan amortization schedule, and at least
within one year from project completion. Some
states have compiled funding guides that further
explain the CWSRF funding process, and several
are listed in Figure 3.
21
-------
WHAT ARE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF
STATE CWSRF PROGRAMS?
States are responsible for administering their
CWSRF programs, including but not limited to:
ii negotiating annual capitalization grant agree-
ments with EPA and making sure that the re-
quired state funds match is provided;
: : tailoring programs to priorities for water quality
and public health;
'ii assisting loan recipients throughout the funding
process by answering questions and providing
fact sheets and funding guides;
ii ensuring that projects comply with environmen-
tal regulations;
: : managing CWSRF program information;
'ii expanding the customer base by identifying new
uses for CWSRF money improving marketing
tools for the CWSRF, and conducting outreach to
prospective loan recipients;
ii ensuring the long-term health and stability of the
CWSRF; and
: : working with EPA's regional offices to ensure that
the CWSRF program runs efficiently and in accor-
dance with Title VI.
States also have several reporting requirements
under Title VI: preparing annual Intended Use Plans
(lUPs) for CWSRF money, submitting annual reports
to EPA, and conducting annual audits of their
CWSRF programs.
Intended Use Plans
lUPs are part of the capitalization grant agreement
and are based on the results of states' priority set-
ting processes. The primary purpose of an IUP is ex-
actly as it sounds: to identify the intended uses of
CWSRF money for a given year. lUPs also aid in ne-
gotiating future capitalization grant agreements and
schedules of grant payments. To meet these objec-
tives, Title VI specifies that lUPs must include the
following:
• a list of wastewater, nonpoint source pollution
control, estuary management (if applicable), and
other types of projects that are eligible for CWSRF
assistance (the composite list or PPL that results
from the state's annual project prioritization
process can suffice);
in a description of the short- and long-term goals
and objectives of the state CWSRF program;
i i information on the activities to be supported, in-
cluding a description of project categories, terms
of financial assistance, and communities served;
and
: i criteria and methods for selecting projects and
distributing funds.50
lUPs also can include a schedule of estimated dis-
bursements of funds with enough detail to estimate
repayment schedules, a preliminary identification of
projects that may undergo an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), and any additional provisions the
state deems necessary. lUPs are subject to public re-
view prior to being submitted to EPA and generally
can be found on the lead agency's web site or ob-
tained by calling the agency. Appendix I lists state
contacts and web sites.
Annual Reports
States must submit annual reports to EPA in accor-
dance with Title VI reporting requirements and the
schedule determined by the capitalization agree-
ment, usually within 90 days of the end of the fiscal
year. The reports generally describe how the state
has met the goals and objectives of the previous fis-
cal year that were stated in the IUP and the capital-
ization agreement. The report also confirms that the
necessary environmental reviews for funded proj-
ects (where applicable) have been conducted, the 20
percent funds match was provided on time, and all
funds have been committed in a timely and expedi-
tious manner.51 The reports may provide information
on loan recipients, loan amounts, loan terms, and
the long-term health of the fund.
Annual Audits
States must conduct annual financial and compli-
ance audits of their programs for the previous fiscal
year. The results of annual audits are summarized in
a report, including whether the CWSRF financial
statements are accurate and follow the appropriate
accounting procedures, its internal controls are suffi-
cient, and the state has complied with all applicable
laws and regulations, including the provisions of the
annual capitalization grants.52
22
-------
WHAT ARE EPA'S RESPONSIBILITIES
UNDER THE CWSRF?
Although states handle all of the administrative de-
tails of their CWSRF programs, EPA plays a key over-
sight role. Duties differ somewhat between EPA's re-
gional offices and headquarters. EPA's regional offices
oversee the CWSRF programs in the states in their re-
gion and determine whether these programs operate
efficiently and in accordance with Title VI. This entails
providing guidance and answering questions, award-
ing annual capitalization grants to states, and review-
ing states' lUPs, annual reports, and annual audits.
For those states that cannot conduct independent au-
dits, EPA's regional offices coordinate with the Office
of the Inspector General to perform audits for those
states. Finally, EPA's regional offices conduct annual
reviews of the state CWSRF programs in their juris-
diction. These reviews assess the progress of states in
carrying out the activities listed in the IUP and annual
reports, as well as in complying with the terms set in
their annual capitalization grant agreements. Appen-
dix II lists the CWSRF contacts at regional EPA offices.
FIGURE 4.
Brief Overview of the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Tie Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) was created by the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996 and is also administered by EPA. The DWSRF is similar to the CWSRF, but
DWSRF loans primarily are issued to public water systems for infrastructure improvements and pol-
lution prevention measures that would enable them to comply with national primary drinking water
standards and protect public health. Public and private community water systems and non-profit non-
community water systems are eligible for DWSRF money, including small and disadvantaged com-
munities. Funded projects may include but are not limited to eligible storage facilities and transmis-
sion and distribution systems, the installation and replacement of failing water treatment facilities,
water supply consolidation, programs that encourage better system operations through enhanced
water systems management, and programs that emphasize prevention as a tool for ensuring safe
drinking water.
While most of the DWSRF goes to improving water infrastructure, states have the flexibility to set
aside a portion of their capitalization grants for projects related to protecting drinking water sources,
since taking steps to prevent contamination can be more efficient and cost-effective than treating
drinking water. States can set aside up to 10 percent of their capitalization grants to administer or pro-
vide technical assistance through source water protection programs and up to 15 percent of their cap-
italization grants for source water protection. Such projects may include but are not limited to provid-
ing loans to acquire land or conservation easements, voluntary incentive-based source water quality
and wellhead protection measures. Although a maximum of 15 percent of the capitalization grant can
be set aside for source water protection activities, not more than 10 percent can be used for a single
type of source water protection activity.
Though brownfields can adversely affect drinking water supplies, the DWSRF has not yet been ap-
plied to brownfield remediation activities. Since several states require remediated groundwater to be
returned to the environment and not used as potable drinking water, it is not likely that the DWSRF
could be applied to groundwater remediation projects.
Additional information on the DWSRF can be found online at EPA's Office of Groundwater and
Drinking Water web site (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf.html) or by contacting the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791 or SDWA@epa.gov.
23 -
-------
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
EPA's headquarters provides na-
tional program oversight and sets na-
tional policy objectives that ensure the
integrity of the CWSRF and improve
its pace by reducing the time it takes
to complete a funding cycle (e.g. issue
loans to eligible entities, begin receiv-
ing loan payments, and use this
money to issue loans for other eligible
projects). EPA may base specific poli-
cies to accomplish these goals on in-
formation gathered from the reporting
requirements under Title VI and sug-
gestions from state CWSRF program
administrators.
EPA's headquarters also can pro-
vide regional EPA offices and states
with information and guidance they
need to administer their CWSRF pro-
grams and implement any policy changes. For ex-
ample, if a state wishes to fund projects other than
POTWs, the transition can be onerous if bureaucratic
barriers exist and state laws or regulations need to
be revised. EPA's headquarters can work with its re-
gional offices to provide the state with assistance
throughout the transition, including training, techni-
cal assistance, guidance, and information on what
other states have done, what has worked well, and
lessons learned.
HOW IS THE CWSRF FISCALLY
INNOVATIVE?
States have devised several innovative financing
techniques that have stretched annual capitalization
grant dollars while expanding their CWSRF to fund
a greater number and variety of water quality proj-
ects. These techniques have increased available
CWSRF funds, enhanced the financial security of the
CWSRF, reduced the administrative burden to
states, lowered the cost of borrowing to the CWSRF
program, and ensured a perpetual and growing
source of CWSRF funds for priority water quality
projects.53 Such techniques include leveraging, im-
plementing several layers of repayment security,
transferring funds to/from the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF), offering linked-deposit
loans through banks, and using local governments
as conduits. Figure 4 (see previous page) provides
an overview of the DWSRF.
FIGURE 5.
Composition of CWSRF Funds
i-i'l-.iy- • -H-
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01
: EPA, with permission.
Leveraging
The CWSRF is well-suited to leverage other resources,
both in the traditional sense as well as in ways suited
to the design of the program and current state laws.
States can issue bonds using the CWSRF as security,
use bond proceeds to issue new loans for eligible
projects, and repay bond holders from loan repay-
ments. To date, 23 states have issued bonds secured
by CWSRF funds, adding $10 billion to the program.
Figure 5 shows how the composition of the CWSRF
has changed from 1988 to 2001 as a result of leverag-
ing and the increased volume of net loan repayments
and net interest earnings.
Layers of Security
To ensure adequate funds for issuing loans and re-
paying bonds secured by CWSRF funds, many state
CWSRF programs have implemented several layers
of security, with the first being CWSRF loan repay-
ments. The second level of security can be a debt
service reserve in which states hold a portion of
CWSRF funds to cover any CWSRF loan defaults.
The third level of security can be cross-program
credit enhancements in the form of cross- collateral-
ization or cross-investment. Cross-collateralization
combines CWSRF and DWSRF assets to enhance
bondholder security, with certain restrictions, to
allow the resources of one program to secure the
other against default. Arizona, Maine, Minnesota,
Missouri, and New Jersey have cross-collateralized
their CWSRF programs. New York and Michigan
— 24 -
-------
have used a similar approach called cross-invest-
ment in which the CWSRF makes short-term inter-
est-bearing investments in the DWSRF or vice-versa
to cover any shortfalls that could threaten the repay-
ment of CWSRF-issued bonds.54
Transfers Between the CWSRF and
DWSRF
The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments in-
cluded a provision in Section 302 that allowed states
to reserve an amount equal to 33 percent of their
DWSRF capitalization grant and transfer these funds
to the CWSRF (or vice versa). States still had to pro-
vide a 20 percent match for the entire capitalization
grant prior to the transfer, and they could not use
transferred funds to provide state matches. The
goal of transfers was to give states greater flexibility
in addressing priority needs, especially in states in
which the same entity manages both programs,
and to encourage those states whose CWSRF and
DWSRF programs are managed by separate entities
to work together to address state priorities.55
As of June, 2001, eight states (Alabama, Colorado,
Illinois, Maryland, Montana, New Jersey, New York,
and Wisconsin) had transferred funds from the
CWSRF to the DWSRF at a total of approximately
4 percent of their capitalization grants, well below
the limit of 33 percent. No state had transferred
funds from the DWSRF to the CWSRF. However, the
provision that authorized transfers included a sun-
set date of September 30, 2001. This date was ex-
tended through September of 2002 by the 2002 Ap-
propriations Act, but the transfer provision has not
been made permanent.
Linked-Deposit Loans
Some states have partnered with financial institu-
tions to offer special CWSRF loans, called linked-de-
posit loans, to private entities, particularly farmers
wishing to implement best management practices
and homeowners with failing septic tanks. In this
approach, states use CWSRF funds to purchase cer-
tificates of deposit from local banks at a lower than
market rate of return. In return, banks agree to pass
on their reduced interest payment obligations as a
subsidy to eligible entities in the form of low-interest
loans for eligible CWSRF projects. They also typi-
cally administer the loans and assume any risk of
default of these types of loans.56 This technique has
reduced the volume of CWSRF loan applications for
states to process and enabled many private entities
to acquire CWSRF funding in a timely manner.
Arkansas, California, Maryland, Minnesota, Mis-
souri, Ohio, and West Virginia have offered linked-
deposit loans.
Using Local Governments as Conduits
State agencies that administer the CWSRF can part-
ner with other state agencies or local governments to
issue CWSRF loans to private entities if they agree to
administer the loan and assume any risk of default
from the entities to which they loan the money. Like
linked-deposit loans, this approach has been popu-
lar for reaching small borrowers such as farmers,
small businesses, and home owners who wish to im-
plement agriculture best management practices, re-
mediate underground storage tanks, and fix failing
septic systems. States that have used this approach
include: California, Maine, Massachusetts, Min-
nesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey,
North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, Washington, West Vir-
ginia, and Wyoming.
WHAT HAVE BEEN THE BENEFITS
OF THE CWSRF?
The CWSRF has funded approximately four times
more projects in a 20-year period than one-time
grants could for the same time period.57 In addition,
the CWSRF provisions in the CWA give no prefer-
ence to one type of loan recipient or one type of proj-
ect, enabling a wider range of entities to apply for
CWSRF loans for wastewater, nonpoint source pol-
lution control (including brownfields), and estuary
management projects.
The CWSRF also has conveyed benefits to states,
EPA, local economies, and loan recipients. The
CWSRF gives states great flexibility in administering
their programs and enables them to tailor programs
to priorities for water quality and public health,
fund projects accordingly, and offer financial assis-
tance for a variety of water quality projects. EPA
benefits from the fact that states administer their re-
spective CWSRF programs. Many local economies
have indirectly benefitted from the CWSRF as well;
reports have shown that each $1 billion of CWSRF
investment creates between 16,000 to 22,000 jobs in
construction and associated industries.58
CWSRF short- and long-term loans with low- or
no-interest rates have dramatically reduced project
25
-------
FIGURE 6
CWSRF Assistance Agreements
by Community Size & Dollars
1,339 1,370
$1.1
$4.3
$3.8
1990
2000
2001
1990
2000
2001
Number of Agreements
Population
• 100,000 & above • 10,000-99,999
Source: EPA, with permission.
Dollar Amount of
Assistance (in billions)
3,500-9,999 <3,500
costs for loan recipients. For example, the total cost
of a no-interest CWSRF loan is approximately 50
percent less than a commercial loan at 7.5 percent.59
In addition, unlike many federal grant programs, the
CWSRF does not require a cost share on the part of
the loan recipient; loan recipients do
not need to provide cash up-front.
Furthermore, the CWSRF has fewer
requirements than federal grants pro-
grams, and loan recipients can com-
bine CWSRF funds with other forms
of technical assistance.
Thus, the CWSRF has provided an
incentive for many communities, par-
ticularly small and disadvantaged
communities, to undertake water
quality projects that otherwise might
not have been possible. Figure 6
shows breakdowns by number of
agreements and dollar amount of as-
sistance by community size in 1990,
2000, and 2001.
Finally, the revolving nature of the
CWSRF and its financial innovations
have stretched annual capitalization
grant dollars, leveraged the federal in-
vestment 1.9 times (as shown in Fig-
ure 7), and ensured a perpetual and
growing source of financial assistance
for future water quality projects. Today, total assets
exceed $37 billion, and over the life of the program,
more than $34 billion in CWSRF loans have been
issued, with average annual funding of between
$3 billion and $4 billion.60
FIGURE 7.
CWSRF Programs Leverage the Federal Investment 1.9 Times
CQ
$40
CWSRF Assistance Provided
$34.3
$18.3
'90 '91
Source: EPA, with permission.
Federal Investment
'92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98
99 '00 '01
- 26 -
-------
FIGURES.
CWSRF Assistance vs. Projected Clean Water Needs
100% .............
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1990
'Needs from EPA's 1996 Needs Survey
Source: EPA, with permission.
2001
NFS & Estuary
Storm Water
CSO
SSO
New Sewers
Advanced Treatment
Secondary Treatment
Needs*
WHAT CAN BE DONE TO IMPROVE
THE CWSRF?
The revolving nature of the CWSRF and its fiscal in-
novations have stretched annual capitalization grant
dollars to ensure a perpetual and growing source of
financial assistance for future water quality projects.
The CWSRF likely will continue to be in high de-
mand as a funding source for wastewater and water
quality projects, which begs the question of how to
make this good program even better and improve
progress toward achieving Clean Water Act goals. To
that end, several recommendations can be offered:
• Encourage all states to fund nonpoint source pol-
lution control and estuary management projects or
offer incentives for voluntary program expansion.
• Include brownfields and USTfields in future
Clean Water Needs Surveys.
Encourage all states to use integrated planning
and priority setting systems.
• Extend the maximum duration of CWSRF loans
to 30 years or the life of the project.
• Make permanent states' ability to transfer funds
between the CWSRF and DWSRF.
• Increase federal appropriations.
Encourage All States to Fund Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control and Estuary
Management Projects or Offer Incentives
for Voluntary Program Expansion
Expanding all state CWSRF programs to fund non-
point source pollution control and estuary manage-
ment projects would benefit water quality and ad-
vance Clean Water Act goals. According to the 1996
Clean Water Needs Survey (CWNS) (the most recent
CWNS for which data is available), state 303(d) lists
and other water quality data show a growing need
for nonpoint source pollution control and estuary
management.61 As Figure 8 shows, the portion of
total CWSRF funding that was used for nonpoint
source pollution control increased from 1990 to 2001,
but it has not met or exceeded the portion of total
nonpoint needs. Because some states have institu-
tional barriers to expanding their CWSRF programs,
incentives for expansion may be more effective than
a federal mandate.
- 27 -
-------
Include Brownfields and USTfields in
Future Clean Water Needs Surveys
Since the demand for CWSRF funding for nonpoint
source pollution control and estuary management
projects is growing, it could be useful to provide
more detailed breakdowns of funding assistance vs.
needs for popular projects in these categories, such
as brownfields/USTfields, when conducting future
Clean Water Needs Surveys. Other categories may
include agriculture best management practices, sep-
tic system maintenance, and wetlands restoration.
This could encourage states to address funding
needs by linking related programs through sharing
information, coordinating policy and outreach ef-
forts, and co-financing environmental cleanups (e.g.
some state programs have linked the CWSRF with
state brownfield/USTfield programs).
Encourage All States to Use Integrated
Planning and Priority Setting Systems
For states that do fund nonpoint source pollution
control and estuary management projects, integrated
planning and priority setting systems have proven
to be a valuable tool for evaluating and comparing
the water quality benefits of different types of eligi-
ble water quality projects so they can be prioritized
and funded accordingly. It also has been important
for coordinating point and nonpoint source pollu-
tion control efforts in priority areas. Encouraging all
states to expand their programs to include nonpoint
source pollution control and estuary management
projects and coupling this with incentives, technical
assistance, or requirements for using integrated pri-
ority setting systems would help ensure that CWSRF
money goes to the highest priority projects.
Extend the Maximum Duration of
CWSRF Loans to 30 Years or the Life of
the Project
The maximum duration of CWSRF loans should be
extended from 20 years to 30 years or for the life of
the project if it exceeds 30 years. Extending the loan
term would lower loan payments and provide an in-
centive for eligible entities, particularly small and
disadvantaged communities, to undertake eligible
water quality projects that otherwise would not be
affordable.
Make Permanent States' Ability to
Transfer Funds Between the CWSRF and
DWSRF
The provision of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments that allowed states to reserve up to 33
percent of their capitalization grants in one state re-
volving fund and transfer it to the other has been ex-
tended but not made permanent, despite the fact
that states have indicated a preference for keeping
the flexibility to transfer funds between SRFs. By ex-
tending the provision or making it permanent, Con-
gress would increase states' ability to address water
quality priorities.
Increase Federal Appropriations
The CWSRF has efficiently worked to reach Clean
Water Act goals in a fiscally responsible manner, but
more can be done. The Water Infrastructure Net-
work estimates a funding gap of $23 billion per year
between current federal funds and funds needed to
replace aging water and wastewater infrastructure
and meet CWA goals.62 According to EPA, states in
which proportional needs exceed proportional allot-
ments include Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, New Jersey, North Car-
olina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and
Virginia.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON
THE CWSRF
Appendix II lists state, Regional EPA, and EPA Head-
quarters CWSRF program contacts and web sites.
28
-------
Appendix II
CWSRF CONTACTS AND WEB SITES
STATE CWSRF CONTACTS63
Alabama
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
Water Division
Municipal Branch
Facilities Construction Section
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program
P.O. Box 301463, Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
Phone: (334) 271-7810 Fax: (334) 279-3051
Email: F12omail@adem.state.al.us
Program Contact: Aubrey H. White III
Phone: (334) 271-7805 Fax: (334) 279-3051
Email: ahw@adem.state.al.us
www.adem.state.al.us/WaterDiv/SRF/SRFMainlnfo.htm
Alaska
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION
Division of Facility Construction and Operation
Municipal Grants and Loans Unit
Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund
555 Cordova St., Anchorage, AK 99501-2617
Phone: (907) 269-7500 Fax: (907) 269-7600
Program Contact: David "Mike" Burns, Program Manager
Phone: (907) 269-7516 Fax: (907) 269-7509
Email: MBurns@envircon.state.ak.us
www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/dfco/
dec mln s.htm
Arizona
ARIZONA WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE
AUTHORITY
202 E. Earll Drive, Suite 480, Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (602) 230-9770 Fax: (602) 230-0425
Program Contact: Mark D. Lammle
Phone: (602) 230-9770 ext. 205 Fax: (602) 230-1480
Email: Lammle_Mark@pop.state.az.us
www.wifa.state.az.us/cwrf.html
Arkansas
ARKANSAS SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
COMMISSION
Water Development Division
Water Resources Cost Share Revolving Fund Program
101 East Capitol Ave, Ste 350, Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 682-3920 Fax: (501) 682-3991
Program Contact: Ron Hill
Phone: (501) 682-3920 Fax: (501) 682-3991
Email: ron.hill@mail.state.ar.us
www.state.ar.us/aswcc/
ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY
Municipal Development Programs
Wastewater Loan Revolving Fund
100 Main St., Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 682-5900 Fax: (501) 682-5483
Program Contact: Kristi March
Phone: (501) 682-5925 Fax: (501) 682-5483
Email: kmarch@adfa.state.ar.us
www.state.ar.us/adfa/programs/wwrl.html
California
CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL
BOARD
Division of Water Quality
Division of Clean Water Programs
Management Support Section
Loans and Grants Branch
State Revolving Loan Fund
10011 Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 341-5874 Fax: (916) 341-5707
Program Contact: James D. Kuykendall
Phone: (916) 227-4355 Fax: (916) 227-4349
Email: kuykendj@cwp.swrcb.ca.gov
www.swrcb.ca.gov/funding/index.html
www.swrcb.ca.gov/funding/docs/fldplsrf.doc
www.swrcb.ca.gov/cwphome/mss/srf.htm
Colorado
COLORADO WATER RESOURCES AND POWER
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
1580 Logan Street, Suite 620, Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303) 830-1550 Fax: (303) 832-8205
Program Contact: Daniel L. Law
Phone: (303) 830-1550 ext. 14 Fax: (303) 832-8205
Email: dlaw@cwrpda.com
www.cwrpda.com/water_poll ution_revolving_fund.htm
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENT
Water Quality Control Division
Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, CO 80246-1530
Phone: (303) 692-2035 Fax: (303) 782-0390
Program Contact: Debbie Stenson
Phone: (303) 692-3554 Fax: (303) 782-0390
Email: debbie.stenson@state.co.us
www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/wqhom.asp
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS
Division of Local Government
Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
1313 Sherman Street, Room 521, Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303) 866-2771 Fax: (303) 866-4819
Program Contact: Barry Cress
Phone: (303) 866-2352 Fax: (303) 866-4819
Email: barry.cress@state.co.us
www.dola.state.co.us/LGS/TA/Utility/WPCRF.htm
29
-------
Connecticut
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Bureau of Water Management
Planning and Standards Division
Municipal Facilities and Grants Section
Clean Water Fund
79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-5127
Phone: (860) 424-3704 Fax: (860) 424-4067
Program Contact: Robert Norwood
Phone: (860) 424-3746 Fax: (860) 424-4067
Email: robert.norwood@po.state.ct.us
www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/cwa/cwfund.htm
CONNECTICUT OFFICE OF THE TREASURER
Debt Management Division
Clean Water Loan Program
55 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-1773
Phone: 1800-618-3404 Fax: (860) 702-3000
Program Contact: Sharon D. Peay
Phone: (860) 702-3134 Fax: (860) 702-3034
Email: sharon.peay@po.state.ct.us
www.state.ct.us/ott/
Delaware
DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
Division of Water Resources
Financial Assistance Branch
Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
5 East Reed Street, Suite 200, Dover, DE 19901
Phone: (302) 739-4403 Fax: (302) 739-2137
Program Contact: Jennifer Klecan
Phone: (302) 739-5081 Fax: (302) 739-2137
Email: jklecan@dnrec.state.de.us
www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/Divisions/Water/Water.htm
Florida
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Division of Water Resource Management
Bureau of Water Facilities Funding
Wastewater and Stormwater State Revolving Fund
2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3505
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Phone: (850) 488-8163 Fax: (850) 921-2769
Program Contact: Mike Murphree
Phone: (850) 488-8163 Fax: (850) 921-2769
Email: michael.murphree@dep.state.fl.us
www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wff/cwsrf/mdex.htm
www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wff/wwmanual.htm
Georgia
GEORGIA ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY
State Revolving Loan Fund
100 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2090, Atlanta, GA 30303-1911
Phone: (404) 656-0938 Fax: (404) 656-6416
Program Contact: Greg Mason
Phone: (404) 656-3824 Fax: (404) 656-6416
Email: gmason@gefa.org
www.ganet.org/gefa/state_rev olving.html
GEORGIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
Water Protection Branch
Engineering and Technical Support Program
State Revolving Loan Program
4220 International Parkway, Suite 101, Atlanta, GA 30354
Phone: (404) 675-6232 Fax: (404) 675- 6246
Program Contact: Bob Scott
Phone: (404) 675-1753 Fax: (404) 675-6246
Email: bob_scott@mail.dnr.state.ga.us
www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/environ/
Hawaii
HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Environmental Health Administration
Environmental Management Division
Wastewater Branch
Planning and Design Section
State Revolving Fund Program
919 Ala Moana Blvd, Suite 309, Honolulu, HI 96814
Phone: (808)586-4294 Fax: (808) 586-4370
Program Contact: George Woolworth / Dennis Tulang
Phone: (808) 586-4294 Fax: (808) 586-4300
Email: gwoolworth@eha.health.state.hi.us
dtulang@eha.health.state.hi.us
www.state.hi.us/heal th/eh/eiemwwOO.htm
Idaho
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
State Water Quality Division
Wastewater State Revolving Loan Fund
1410 North Hilton, Boise, ID 83706-1253
Phone: (208) 373-0502 Fax: (208) 373-0417
Program Contact: Bill Jerrel
Phone: (208) 373-0400 Fax: (208) 373-0576
Email: wjerrel@deq.state.id.us
www2.state.id.us/deq/water/waterl.htm
Illinois
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Bureau of Water
Infrastructure Financial Assistance Section
Water Pollution Control Loan Program
1021 North Grand Avenue East, Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Phone: (217) 782-2027 Fax: (217) 785-1225
Program Contact: Ronald P. Drainer
Phone: (217) 782-2027 Fax: (217) 785-1225
Email: ron.drainer@epa.state.il.us
www.epa.state.il.us/water/financial-assistance/waste-water/
index.html
Indiana
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
Office of Water Quality
Financial Administrative Branch
Wastewater State Revolving Fund
100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
Phone: (317) 232-8476 or 1800-451-6027 Fax: (317) 232-8406
Program Contact: Arthur Carter
Phone: (317) 233-2474 Fax: (317) 232-8406
Email: acarter@dem.state.in.us
www.state.in.us/idem/owm/fasb/srf info.html
3O
-------
INDIANA STATE BUDGET AGENCY
State Revolving Fund
I N. Capital Avenue #320, Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 232-5610 Fax: (317) 233-3323
Email: budgetagency@sba.state.in.us
Program Contact: Rich Emery
Phone: (317) 232-0759 Fax: (317) 233-3323
Email: remery@sba.state.in.us
www.state.in.us/sba
www.in.gov/sba/stateinf ormation/srf_b if.html
Iowa
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Protection Division
Water Quality Bureau
Wastewater Section
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Henry A. Wallace Building
502 East Ninth Street, Des Moines, IA 50319-0034
Phone: (515) 281-5918 Fax: (515) 281-6794
Program Contact: Shirley Christoffersen
Phone: (515) 281-8156 Fax: (515) 281-6794
Email: shirley.christoffersen@dnr.state.ia.us
www.state.ia.us/dnr/organiza/epd/wastewtr/srloan.htm
IOWA FINANCE AUTHORITY
Sewage Treatment Works Financing Program
100 East Grand, Suite 250, Des Moines, IA 50309
Phone: (515) 242-7230 Fax: (515) 242-4957
Program Contact: Barbara Gordon
Phone: (515) 242-4972 Fax: (515) 242-4957
Email: barb.gordon@ifa.state.ia.us
www.ifahome.com/partner_environment.htm
Kansas
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENT
Division of Environment
Bureau of Water
Water Pollution Control Revolving Loan Fund
Forbes Field, Building 283, Topeka, KS 66620
Phone: (785) 296-0461 Fax: (785) 296-5509
Program Contact: Rodney. R. Geisler
Phone: (785) 296-5527 Fax: (785) 296-5509
Email: rgeisler@kdhe.state.ks.us
www.kdhe.state.ks.us/environment/evry thng.html#
Wastewater
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
Division of Accounts and Reports
Central Accounting Services Section
Appropriations/Master Lease Purchase Team
900 SW Jackson, Room351S, Topeka, KS 66612-1248
Phone: (785) 296-2311 Fax: (785) 291-3399
Program Contact: Annette Witt
Phone: (785) 296-8083 Fax: (785) 296-6841
Email: annette.witt@state.ks.us
da.state.ks.us/ar/genacct/acctserv.htm
KANSAS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY
Kansas Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
700 SW Jackson, Suite 1000, Topeka, KS 66603-3758
Phone: (785) 296-6747 Fax: (785) 296-6810
Program Contact: Todd Fraizer
Phone: (785) 296-6747 Fax: (785) 296-6810
Email: tfraizer@kdfa.org
www.kdfa.org/
Kentucky
KENTUCKY INFRASTRUCTURE AUTHORITY
Federally Assisted Wastewater Revolving Fund
375 Versailles Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Phone: (502) 573-0260 Fax: (502) 573-0157
Program Contact: Debby L. Milton
Phone: (502) 573-0260 Fax: (502) 573-0157
Email: debby.milton@mail.state.ky.us
wris.state.ky.us/kia/overview.htm
wris.state.ky.us/kia/loana.htm
wris.state.ky.us/kia/loanb.htm
KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Division of Water
Facilities Construction Branch
Project Administration Section
Wastewater Revolving Fund
Frankfort Office Park
14 ReiUy Road, Frankfort, KY 40601
Phone: (502) 564-3410 Fax: (502) 564-2741
Program Contact: Kelli Rice
Phone: (502) 564-2225 ext. 540 Fax: (502) 564-2741
Email: rice@nrdep.nr.state.ky.us
water.nr.state.ky.us/dow/dwhome.htm
Louisiana
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Municipal Facilities Division
Municipal Facilities Revolving Loan Fund
7290 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Baton Rouge, LA 70810
Phone: (225) 765-0700 Fax: (225) 765-0742
Email: financial@deq.state.la.us
Program Contact: Yvette Beamon
Phone: (225) 765-0810 Fax: (225) 765-0745
Email: yvette_b@deq.state.la.us
www.deq.state.la.us/financial/srf/index.htm
Maine
MAINE MUNICIPAL BOND BANK
Wastewater State Revolving Loan Fund
3 University Drive, Augusta, ME 04338-2268
Phone: 1800-821-1113 or (207) 622-9386 Fax: (207) 623-5359
Email: info@mainebondbank.com
Program Contact: Karen L. Asselin
Phone: (207) 622-9386 Fax: (207) 623-5359
Email: kla@mainebondbank.com
www.mainebondbank.com/wwsrf.html
www.mainebondbank.com/WastewaterApp.pdf
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Bureau of Land and Water Quality
Division of Engineering and Technical Assistance
Grants and Loans Section
State Revolving Loan Fund
17 State House Station #17, Augusta, ME 04333-0017
Phone: 1800-452-1942 or (207) 287-2111 Fax: (207) 287-7191
Program Contact: William Brown
Phone: (207) 287-7804 Fax: (207) 287-7191
Email: bill.p.brown@state.me.us
www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/docgrant/srfparag.htm
31
-------
Maryland
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Water Quality Financing Administration
Water Quality Revolving Loan Fund
2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, MD 21224
Phone: 1800-633-6101 or (410) 631-3000 Fax: (410) 631-3888
Program Contact: Jag Khuman / George Keller
Phone: (410) 631-3981 / (410) 631-3746
Fax: (410) 631-3968 / (410) 631-3517
Email: jkhuman@mde.state.md.us
gkeller@mde.state.md.us
www.mde.state.md.us/wqfa/index.html
Massachusetts
DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE TREASURER
Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust
1 Ashburton Place, 12th Floor, Boston, MA 02108
Phone: (617) 367-3900 Fax: (617) 227-1622
Program Contact: Nancy Parrillo
Phone: (617) 367-3900 ext. 508 Fax: (617) 227-1773
Email: nparrillo@tre.state.ma.us
www.state.ma.us/treasury/wpat.htm
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Bureau of Resource Protection
Division of Municipal Services
Watershed Project Development Section
Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan
Programs
One Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108
Phone: (617) 292-5500 Fax: (617) 292-5850
Email: dep.infoline@state.ma.us
Program Contact: Joseph McNealy
Phone: (617) 292-5800 Fax: (617) 292-5850
Email: joseph.mcnealy@state.ma.us
www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/mf/srf.htm
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE
State House, Room 373, Boston, MA 02133
Phone: (617) 727-2040 Fax: (617) 727-2779
Program Contact: Scott Jordan
Phone: (607) 727-2040 Fax: (617) 727-2779
Email: scott.jordan@state.ma.us
www.state.ma.us/eoaf/
Michigan
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Environmental Assistance Division
Municipal Facilities Section
Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
Town Center Building, Second Floor
333 South Capitol Avenue, Lansing, MI 48933
Phone: (517) 335-2161 Fax: (517) 335-0743
Program Contact: Chip Heckathorn
Phone: (517) 373-4725 Fax: (517) 335-0743
Email: heckathc@state.mi.us
www.michigan.gov/deq/
www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-ead-mfs-
formsguidance-SRFBook.pdf
www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-ead-mfs-
formsguidance-SRFBrochure.pdf
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
Michigan Municipal Bond Authority
Local Audit and Finance Division
State Revolving Fund
Treasury Building
430 W. Allegan, Lansing, MI 48922
Phone: (517) 373-1728 Fax: (517) 335-2160
Email: treasmmba@state.mi.us
Program Contact: Janet Hunter-Moore
Phone: (517) 373-1728 Fax: (517) 335-2160
Email: moorejh@state.mi.us
www.michigan.gov/treasury
Minnesota
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Business and Community Development Division
Public Facilities Authority
Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
500 Metro Square
121 7th Place East, St. Paul, MN 55101-2146
Phone: 1800-657-3858 or (651) 297-1291 Fax: (651) 296-1290
Email: dted@state.mn.us
Program Contact: Jeff Freeman
Phone: (651) 296-2838 Fax: (651) 296-5287
Email: jeff.freeman@state.mn.us
www.dted.state.mn.us/02xOOf.asp
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
Water Quality Division
Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone: 1800-657-3864 or (651) 296-6300 Fax: (651) 297-8676
Program Contact: Vickie Krech
Phone: (651) 296-3630 Fax: (651) 297-1456
Email: vickie.krech@pca.state.mn.us
www.pca.state.mn.us/water/revolvingfund.html
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Best Management Practices Loan Program
90 West Plato Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55107
Phone: (651) 297-2200 Fax: (651) 296-9388
Program Contact: Dwight Wilcox
Phone: (651) 215-1018 Fax: (651) 297-7678
Email: dwight.wilcox@state.mn.us
www.mda.state.mn.us/agbmp/default.htm
Mississippi
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Office of Pollution Control
Surface Water Division
Municipal Construction Branch
State Revolving Loan Program
2380 Highway 80 West, Jackson, MS 39289-0385
Phone: (601) 961-5171 Fax: (601) 961-5187
Email: srfcontact@deq.state.ms.us
Program Contact: Mark Smith
Phone: (601) 961-5130 Fax: (601) 961-5187
Email: mark_smith@deq.state.ms.us
www.deq.state.ms.us/newweb/homepages.nsf
32
-------
MISSISSIPPI STATE TAX COMMISSION
1577 Springridge Road, Raymond, MS 39154
Phone: (601) 923-7000 Fax: (601) 856-1390
Program Contact: Alice Gorman
Phone: (601) 923-7670 Fax: (601) 923-7658
Email: agorman@mstc.state.ms.us
www.mstc.state.ms.us/
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND
ADMINISTRATION
550 High Street, 901 Sillers Building, Jackson, MS 39201
Phone: (601) 359-3009 Fax: (601) 359-2405
Program Contact: Edward Ranck
Phone: (601) 359-3402 Fax: (601) 359-2405
Email: rancke@dfa.state.ms.us
www.dfa.state.ms.us/
Missouri
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Improvement and Energy Resources Authority
Missouri State Revolving Fund
205 Jefferson Street, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
Phone: 1800- 334-6946 or (573) 751-1192 Fax: (573) 751-9396
Email: eiera@mail.dnr.state.mo.us
Program Contact: Karen Massey / Steve Townley
Phone: (573) 751-4919 / (573) 751-1192 Fax: (573) 635-3486 /
(573) 751-9396
Email: nrmassk@mail.dnr.state.mo.us
nrtowns@mail.dnr.state.mo.us
www.dnr.state.mo.us/eiera/revolving_fund.htm
Montana
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Planning, Prevention, and Assistance Division
Technical and Financial Assistance Bureau
Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund
1520 East Sixth Avenue, P.O. Box 200901
Helena, MT 59620-0901
Phone: (406) 444-6697 Fax: (406) 444-6836
Program Contact: Todd Teegarden
Phone: (406) 444-5324 Fax: (406) 444-6836
Email: tteegarden@state.mt.us
www.deq.state.mt.us/wqinfo/WPCSRF/Index.asp
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND CONSERVATION
Conservation and Resource Development Division
Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund Loans
1625 Eleventh Avenue, Helena, MT 59620-1601
Phone: (406) 444-2074 Fax: (406) 444-2684
Program Contact: Anna M. Miller
Phone: (406) 444-6689 Fax: (406) 444-6721
Email: annam@state.mt.us
www.dnrc.state.mt.us/cardd/cardd.html
Nebraska
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Water Quality Division
Wastewater Facilities Section
Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund
1200 N Street, Suite 400, Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
Phone: (402) 471-2186 Fax: (402) 471-2909
Email: MoreInfo@NEDQ.state.NE.US
Program Contact: Rick Bay
Phone: (402) 471-4200 Fax: (402) 471-2909
Email: rick.bay@ndeq.state.ne.us
www.deq.state.ne.us/
Nevada
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
Division of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
State Revolving Loan Fund
333 W. Nye Lane, Room 129, Carson City, NV 89706-0851
Phone: (775) 687-4670 Fax: (775) 687-5856
Program Contact: Morris Kanowitz
Phone: (775) 687-4670, extension 3144 Fax: (775) 687-5856
Email: mkanowit@ndep.carson-city.nv.us
ndep.state.nv.us/bwpc/srlfOl.htm
ndep .state.nv.us/bwpc/srlf02.htm
OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
Debt Management, Carson City Office
101 N. Carson Street, Suite 4, Carson City, NV 89701
Phone: (775) 684-5600 Fax: (775) 684-5623
Email: treasury@treasurer.state.nv.us
Program Contact: Robin Reedy
Phone: (775) 684-5757 Fax: (775) 684-5623
Email: reedy@govmail.state.nv.us
treasurer.state.nv.us/new/
New Hampshire
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
Water Division, Wastewater Engineering Bureau
State Revolving Fund Loan Program
6 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03302-0095
Phone: (603) 271-3503 Fax: (603) 271-2867
Program Contact: George B. McMennamin
Phone: (603) 271-3448 Fax: (603) 271-4128
Email: g_mcmennamin@des.state.nh.us
www.des.state.nh.us/wwe/srf.htm
www.des.state.nh.us/grantsjoans.htm
New Jersey
NEW JERSEY ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE
TRUST
3131 Princeton Pike, Building #6, Suite 201
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
Phone: (609) 219-8600 Fax: (609) 219-8620
Email: Information@njeit.org
Program Contact: Maryclaire D'Andrea
Phone: (609) 219-8600 Fax: (609) 219-8620
Email: mdandrea@njeit.org
www.njeit.org/finance.htm
www.njeit.org/examples.htm
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Division of Water Quality
Municipal Finance and Construction Element
Environmental Infrastructure Financing Program
401 E. State Street, Floor Three, West Wing, Trenton, NJ 08625
Phone: (609) 777-3393 Fax: (609) 633-8165
Program Contact: Gene Chebra
Phone: (609) 633-1208 Fax: (609) 633-8165
Email: gchebra@dep.state.nj.us
www.state.nj.us/dep/grantandloanprograms/ereifp.htm
www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/mface.htm#finance
-------
New Mexico
Ohio
NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Administrative Services Division
Construction Programs Bureau
Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Construction Funding
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Harold S. Runnels Building
1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, MM 87502
Phone: (505) 827-2806 Fax: (505) 827-2836
Program Contact: Ramona Rael
Phone: (505) 827-2808 Fax: (505) 827-2837
Email: ramona_rael@nmenv.state.nm.us
www.nmenv.state.nm.us/cpb/cwsrf.html
New "York
NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES
CORPORATION
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12207-2997
Phone: (518) 402-7433 or (800) 882-9721 Fax: (518) 457-3908
Email: srf@nysefc.org
Program Contact: David Morseman
Phone: (518) 402-7433 or (800) 882-9721 Fax: (518) 402-7456
Email: morseman@nysefc.org
www.nysefc.org/srf/SRFhome.htm
www.nysefc.org/srf/CWSRF/CWSRFhome.htm
www.nycofunding.org/newcofund/waterandsewer.htm
North Carolina
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Construction Grants and Loans Section
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
2728 Capital Boulevard, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: (919) 733-6900 Fax: (919) 715-6229
Program Contact: John R. Blowe
Phone: (919) 715-6212 Fax: (919) 715-6229
Email: bobby.blowe@ncmail.net
www.nccgl.net/fap/cwsrf/index.html
www.nccgl.net/fap/cwsrf/rulesl.pdf
North Dakota
NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Environmental Health Section
Division of Municipal Facilities
State Revolving Fund
1200 Missouri Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58506-5520
Phone: (701) 328-5211 Fax: (701) 328-5200
Program Contact: Jeff C. Hauge
Phone: (701) 328-5211 Fax: (701) 328-5200
Email: jhauge@state.nd.us
www.health.state.nd.us/ndhd/environ/mf/cwsrf/~srf.htm
NORTH DAKOTA MUNICIPAL BOND BANK
700 East Main Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58501
Phone: (701) 328-3924 or 1800-526-3509 Fax: (701) 328-3979
Email: ndmbb@state.nd.us
Program Contact: DeAnn Ament
Phone: (701) 328-7110 Fax: (701) 328-7130
Email: dament@state.nd.us
www.state.nd.us/bondbank/srf.htm
OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Division of Environmental and Financial Assistance
Administrative Support Section
Water Pollution Control Loan Fund
122 Couth Front Street, Columbus, OH 43216-1049
Phone: (614) 644-2832 Fax: (614) 644-3687
Program Contact: Greg Smith
Phone: (614) 644-2798 Fax: (614) 644-3687
Email: greg.smith@epa.state.oh.us
www.epa.state.oh.us/defa/wpclf2.html
www.epa.state.oh.us/defa/comguide.html
OHIO WATER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Water Pollution Control Loan Fund
88 E. Broad Street, Suite 1300, Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 466-5822 Fax: (614) 644-9964
Program Contact: Steve Grossman
Phone: (614) 466-5822 Fax: (614) 644-9964
Email: steve@owda.org
www.owda.org/html/loans.asp
Oklahoma
OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BOARD
Financial Assistance Division
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
3800 North Classen Boulevard, Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Phone: (405) 530-8800 Fax: (405) 530-8900
Program Contact: Joe Freeman
Phone: (405) 530-8800 Fax: (405) 530-8900
Email: jsfreeman@owrb.state.ok.us
www.state.ok.us/~owrb/fa/fa2.html#_l_33
www.state.ok.us/~owrb/forms/fa/CWFACTS.PDF
Oregon
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Water Quality Division
State Revolving Fund
811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204-1390
Phone: (503) 229-6814 or (503) 229-6412 Fax: (503) 229-6124
Program Contact: Rick Walters
Phone: (503) 229-6814 Fax: (503) 229-6037
Email: watters.rick@deq.state.or.us
www.deq.state.or.us/wq/wqgrant/wqgrant.htm
www.deq.state.or.us/wq/wqgrant/srf_fs.htm
Pennsylvania
PENNSYLVANIA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
AUTHORITY
Keystone Building
22 South Third Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101
Phone: (717) 787-8137 Fax: (717)705-1656
Email: gov@state.pa.us
Program Contact: Beverly Reinhold
Phone: (717)783-6589 Fax: (717)705-1656
Email: breinhold@state.pa.us
www.pennvest.state.pa.us/
34
-------
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater Management
Division of Municipal Financial Assistance
Administrative Services Section
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105
Phone: (717) 787-5017 Fax: (717) 772-3249
Program Contact: Peter Slack
Phone: (717) 772-4054 Fax: (717) 772-3249
Email: slack.peter@dep.state.pa.us
www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/WSM/
WSM_TA O/Finan_Tech_Asst.htm
Puerto Rico
PUERTO Rico ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
P.O. Box 11488, San Juan, PR 910
Program Contact: Ivonne Santiago
Phone: (787) 767-8073 Fax: (787) 767-1962
Email: jcaagua@prtc.net
www.epa.gov/region02/cepd/compnum.htmttJCA
PUERTO Rico INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING
AUTHORITY
P.O. Box 42001, San Juan, PR 940-2001
Program Contact: Gabriel Rivera
Phone: (787) 722-4170 Fax: (787) 728-6835
Email: grsl223@gdb.prstar.net
Rhode Island
RHODE ISLAND CLEAN WATER FINANCE AGENCY
235 Promenade Street, Suite 119, Providence, RI 02908-5767
Phone: (401) 453-4430 Fax: (401) 453-4094
Email: ricwfa@doa.state.ri.us
Program Contact: Robin K. Hedges
Phone: (401) 453-4430 Ext. 10 Fax: (401) 453-4094
Email: rhedges@doa.state.ri.us
www.state.ri.us/ricwfa/programs.htm
www.state.ri.us/ricwfa/works.htm
RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
Bureau of Environmental Protection
Office of Water Resources
State Revolving Fund
235 Promenade Street, Suite 119, Providence, RI 02908-5767
Phone: (401) 222-3961 Fax: (401) 521-4230
Program Contact: John J. Manning
Phone: (401) 222-3961 ext. 7254 Fax: (401) 521-4230
Email: jmanning@dem.state.ri.us
www.state.ri.us/dem/programs/benviron/water/finance/srf/
index.htm
South Carolina
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
Bureau of Water
Water and Wastewater Facility Loans
2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29201
Phone: (803) 898-4300 Fax: (803) 898-4215
Program Contact: David Price
Phone: (803) 898-3993 Fax: (803) 898-4215
Email: pricedc@columb32.dhec.state.sc.us
www.scdhec.net/water/html/grants.html
www.scdhec.net/water/html/srf.html
SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD
Division of Regional Development
Office of Local Government
State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
1201 Main Street, Suite 910, Columbia, SC 29201
Phone: (803) 253-4160 Fax: (803) 737-3807
Program Contact: Patricia A. Comp
Phone: (803) 737-3808 Fax: (803) 737-3807
Email: compp@drd.state.sc.us
www.state.sc.us/board/
www.state.sc.us/lgovern/swpcr.htm
South Dakota
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
Division of Financial and Technical Assistance
Water Resources Assistance
Water and Waste Funding
523 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501-3181
Phone: (605) 773-4216 Fax: (605) 773-4068
Email: DENRINTERNET@state.sd.us
Program Contact: David Templeton
Phone: (605) 773-4216 Fax: (605) 773-4068
Email: dave.templeton@state.sd.us
www.state.sd.us/denr/denr.html
Tennessee
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
CONSERVATION
Division of Community Assistance
State Revolving Fund Loan Program
L&C Tower, Eighth Floor
401 Church Street, Nashville, TN 37243
Phone: (615) 532-0445 Fax: (615) 532-0199
Program Contact: Jim Poff / Shirley Thornton
Phone: (615) 532-0451 / (615) 532-0315 Fax: (615) 532-0199
Email: jpoff@mail.state.tn.us
sthornton@mail.state.tn. us
www.state.tn.us/environment/dca/swagrnt.htm
www.state.tn.us/environment/dca/cwsrf.htm
www.state.tn.us/environment/dca/cwsrflp.htm
TENNESSEE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY
James K. Polk State Office Building, Suite 1600
Nashville, TN 37243-0273
Phone: (615) 741-2501 Fax: (615) 741-7328
Program Contact: Janet Manookian
Phone: (615) 741-4272, extension 150 Fax: (615) 741-5986
Email: jmanooki@mail.state.tn. us
www.comptroller.state.tn.us/
Texas
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Office of Project Finance and Construction Assistance
Northern Project Management Division
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program
1700 North Congress Avenue, Austin, TX 78711-3231
Phone: (512) 463-7853 Fax: (512) 475-2053
Email: info@twdb.state.tx.us
Program Contact: George E. Green
Phone: (512) 463-7853 Fax: (512) 305-9243
Email: ggreen@twdb.state.tx.us
www.twdb.state.tx.us/assistance/financial/
fin_infrastructure/cw srffund.htm
www.veterans.house.gov/hinojosa/owoftexas.html
35
-------
Utah
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Division of Water Quality
Utah Water Quality Project Assistance Program
288 North 1460 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
Phone: (801) 538-6146 Fax: (801) 538-6016
Program Contact: Walter L. Baker
Phone: (801) 538-6146 Fax: (801) 538-6016
Email: wbaker@deq.state.ut.us
www.deq.state.ut.us/eqwq/Con_Asst/Con_asst.htm
www.deq.state.ut.us/eqwq/con_asst/comgdl.htm
Ve rm ont
VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Department of Environmental Conservation
Financial Management Section
Cannery Building
103 South Main Street, Waterbury, VT 05671-0406
Phone: (802) 241-3737 Fax: (802) 244-4516
Program Contact: Larry Fitch
Phone: (802) 241-3742 Fax: (802) 244-4516
Email: larry.fitch@anrmail.anr.state.vt.us
www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/fed/FMS.htm
VERMONT MUNICIPAL BOND BANK
133 State Street, Montpelier, VT 05602-2702
Program Contact: Malcolm Rode
Phone: (802) 223-2717 Fax: (802) 229-4709
Email: msrode@attglobal.net
Virginia
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Water Division
Wastewater Revolving Loan Fund
629 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23240
Phone: (804) 698-4000 Fax: (804) 698-4136
Program Contact: Donald Wampler
Phone: (804) 698-4132 Fax: (804) 698-4136
Email: dwwampler@deq.state.va.us
www.deq.state.va.us/pdf/forms/water/vrlfapp.pdf
VIRGINIA RESOURCES AUTHORITY
Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund
707 East Main Street. Suite 1350, Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 644-3100 Fax: (804) 644-3109
Program Contact: Robert Lauterberg
Phone: (804) 644-3100 Fax: (804) 644-3109
Email: rlauterberg@vra.state.va.us
www.vra.state.va.us/project/wastewater.html
www.vra.state.va.us/finance/vwfrf.html
www.vra.state.va.us/project/brownfields.htm
Washington
Washington State Department of Ecology
Water Quality Program
Water Quality Financial Assistance
State Revolving Fund
300 Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA 98503
Phone: (360) 407-6000
Program Contact: Brian Howard
Phone: (360) 407-6510 Fax: (360) 407-6426
Email: brho461@ecy.wa.gov
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/funding/
West Virginia
WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Office of Water Resources
Construction Assistance Program
Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
617 fi Leon Sullivan Way, Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: (304)558-0641 Fax: (304) 558-3778
Program Contact: Michael Johnson
Phone: (304) 558-0641 Fax: (304) 558-3778
Email: mjohnson@mail.dep.state.wv.us
www.dep.state.wv.us/wr/OWR_Website/ConstAsist/SRF.htm
WEST VIRGINIA WATER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
180 Association Drive
Charleston, WV 25311-1571
Phone: (304) 558-3612 Fax: (304) 558-0299
Program Contact: Daniel (Bernie) Yonkosky
Phone: (304) 558-3612 Fax: (304) 558-0299
Email: dyorikosky@wvwda.org
www.wvwda.org/programs.htm
Wisconsin
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Division of Customer Assistance and External Relations
Bureau of Community Financial Assistance
Environmental Loans Section
Clean Water Fund Program and Land Recycling Loan Program
101 South Webster Street - CF/8, Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 266-7555 Fax: (608) 267-0496
Program Contact: Becky Scott
Phone: (608) 267-7584 Fax: (608) 267-0496
Email: scottr@dnr.state.wi.us
www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cfa/EL/Section/clean.html
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
101 East Wilson Street, Madison, WI 53701
Phone: (608) 266-1741 Fax: (608) 266-7645
Email: doaweb@doa.state.wi.us
Program Contact: Ed Brinson
Phone: (608) 267-1836 Fax: (608) 266-7645
Email: ed.brinson@doa.state.wi.us
www.doa.state.wi.us/index.asp
Wyoming
WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Water Quality Division
Water and Wastewater Section
Wyoming State Water Pollution Control Revolving Loan Account
Herschler Building
122 West 25th Street, Fourth Floor West
Cheyenne, WY 82002-0600
Phone: (307) 777-7781 Fax: (307) 777-5973
Program Contact: Brian Mark
Phone: (307) 777-6371 Fax: (307) 777-5973
Email: bmark@state.wy.us
deq.state.wy.us/wqd/w&ww/SRF/srfl cans, htm
deq.state.wy.us/wqd/w&ww/SRF/CWSRF.htm
deq.state.wy.us/wqd/w&ww/SRF/fctsheet2.htm
36
-------
OFFICE OF STATE LANDS AND INVESTMENTS
Administrative Services Division
Grants and Loans Section
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
122 West 25th Street, Third Floor West
Cheyenne, WY 82002-0600
Phone: (307) 777-7331 Fax: (307) 777-5400
Program Contact: Rebecca Webb /Jeanne Stephen
Phone: (307) 777-7453 / (307) 777-6046 Fax: (307) 777-5400
Email: rwebb@state.wy.us
jsteph@state.wy.us
lands.state.wy.us/Forms.htm
lands.state.wy.us/CWSRFP.pdf
REGIONAL EPA CWSRF CONTACTS6
Region I: CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT
U.S. EPA
One Congress Street
JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02114-2023
Program Contact: Ralph Caruso
Phone: (617) 918-1612 Fax: (617) 918-2064
Email: caruso.ralph@epa.gov
www.epa.gov/region01/topics/water/cleanwater.html
Region II: NJ, NY, PR, U.S. Virgin Islands
U.S. EPA
290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866
Program Contact: Robert Gill
Phone: (212) 637-3884 Fax: (212) 637-3891
Email: gill.robert@epa.gov
www.epa.gov/region02/water/wpb/staterev.htm
Region III: DE, MD, PA, VA, WV, DC
U.S. EPA
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
Program Contact: Magdalene Cunningham
Phone: (215) 814-2338 Fax: (215) 814-2318
Email: cunningham.magdalene@epa.gov
www.epa.gov/region03/
Region IV: AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN
U.S. EPA
61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303
Program Contact: Conny Chandler
Phone: (404) 562-9336 Fax: (404) 562-8692
Email: chandler.conny@epa.gov
www.epa.gov/region4/
Region V: IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI
U.S. EPA
77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Program Contact: Gene Wojcik
Phone: (312) 886-0174 Fax: (312) 886-0168
Email: wojcik.gene@epa.gov
www.epa.gov/region5/water/
Region VI: AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
U.S. EPA
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Program Contact: Velma Smith
Phone: (214) 665-7153 Fax: (214) 665-7373
Email: smith.velma@epa.gov
www.epa.gov/earthlr6/news/grants.htm
Region VII: IA,KS,MO,NE
U.S. EPA
901 North Fifth Street, Kansas City, KS 66101
Program Contact: Ann Keener
Phone: (913) 551-7388 Fax: (913) 551-7765
Email: keener.ann@epa.gov
www.epa.gov/region07/programs/wwpd/srfhome/
cws rf .html
Region VIII: CO,MT, ND, SD, UT, WY
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466
Program Contact: Brian Friel
Phone: (303) 312-6277 Fax: (303) 312-6131
Email: friel.brian@epa.gov
www.epa.gov/region8/
Region IX: AZ, CA, HI, NV, Guam,
American Samoa
U.S. EPA
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
Program Contact: Juanita Licata
Phone: (415) 972-3450 Fax: (415) 947-3537
Email: licata.juanita@epa.gov
www.epa.gov/region09/
Region X: AK, ID, OR, WA
U.S. EPA
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101
Program Contact: Michelle Tucker
Phone: (206) 553-1414 Fax: (206) 553-6984
Email: tucker.michelle@epa.gov
www.epa.gov/rlOearth/index.htm
EPA HEADQUARTERS CWSRF
CONTACT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
Municipal Support Division
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Branch
1201 Constitution Avenue, NW
EPA East, Mail Code 4204M
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 564-0567
www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/index.htm
37
-------
ENDNOTES
1 USTs are regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) through state- administered programs overseen by EPA.
These programs set and enforce minimum standards for design, instal-
lation, operation, upgrading, leak detection, and closure of USTs. They
also establish the requirements for reporting and cleaning up leaks
from USTs and assuring that costs of cleanup and liability to third par-
ties will be covered. (EPA, Overview of the Federal UST Program, http://
www.epa.gov/swerustl/overview.htm)
2 EPA, Overview of the Federal UST Program,
http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/overview.htm
3 MTBE is added to automobile fuel as an octane enhancer. Introduced
in the late 1970's during lead phase- out, it was used in increasing
quantities during the 1990's to help gasoline meet the requirements of
the Federal Reformulated Gasoline and Oxyfuels programs under the
Congress in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. (EPA, Funding
MTBE Prevention and Remediation Projects with the CWSRF, http://www
epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/srf_mtbe.pdf; EPA, MTBE and USTs
web page, http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/mtbe/index.htm)
4 EPA, 2000, Underground Storage Tanks and Brownfields Sites: USTfields
Initiative, http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/ustfield/overview.pdf
5 EPA, Funding Brownfield Remediation with the Clean Water State Revolv-
ing Fund Factsheet, EPA 832- F-98-006, October 1998, http://www.epa.
gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/brown.pdf; EPA, Brownfield Remediation
Through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, EPA 832-F-01-007,
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/brownfield_studies.pdf.
6 Ohio EPA, Financial Assistance for Voluntary Action Program Remedia-
tions, October 1997, http://www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/vap/financial/
finance.html; Ohio EPA, Financial Assistance for Voluntary Action Pro-
gram Remediations, April 1998, http://www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/vap/
factsheets/factS.html; Ohio EPA, About Ohio's Voluntary Action Program,
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/vap/aboutvap/aboutvap.html;
Ohio EPA, Summary Outline of the VAP, http://www.epa.state.oh.us/
derr/vap/rulesumm.html; and Ohio EPA, Ohio's Voluntary Action Pro-
gram Factsheet, http://www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/vap/factsheets/
factl.pdf
7 The director of Ohio EPA issues a covenant-not-to-sue upon satisfac-
tory completion of cleanup activities at properties participating in the
VAP as a promise that the State of Ohio will not require further investi-
gation or cleanup of the volunteer's property. (Ohio EPA, Ohio's Volun-
tary Cleanup and Redevelopment Program: A Report from Governor George
V. Voinovich; April 1998, http://www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/vap/
gov_rept/vapgov.pdf)
8 Ohio EPA, Financial Assistance for Voluntary Action Program Remedia-
tions, October 1997, http://www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/vap/financial/
finance.html
9 Ohio EPA, Financial Assistance—Ohio Volunteers are Taking Advantage of
VAP/DOD Low-Interest Loan and Grant Programs, http://www.epa.state.
oh.us/derr/vap/newsletter/97summer/fin_assi.html
10 Ohio EPA, Financial Assistance for Voluntary Action Program Remedia-
tions, April 1998, http://www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/vap/factsheets/
fact5.html
11 Ohio EPA, WPCLF Program Information, http://www.epa.state.oh.us/
defa/wpclf2.html; Ohio EPA, The WPCLF Community Guide: a User's
Guide to the Ohio Water Pollution Control Loan Fund for Publicly-Owned
Treatment Works and Nonpoint Source Improvements, http://www.epa.
state.oh.us/defa/comguide.html
12 This guide can be found online at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/defa/
comguide.html
la Ohio EPA, Ohio's Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment Program: A
Report from Governor George V. Voinovich; April 1998, http://www.epa.
state.oh.us/derr/vap/gov_rept/vapgov.pdf; EPA, Ohio CWSRF Pro-
vides Loans to Brownfields Remediation Projects, http://www.epa.gov/
owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/bfield.pdf; Ohio EPA, Financial Assistance-Ohio
Volunteers are Taking Advantage of VAP/DOD Low-Interest Loan and Grant
Programs http://www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/vap/newsletter/
97summer/fin_assi.html; Ohio EPA, VAP Financial Incentives,
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/vap/leg_report/loans.html
14 Ohio EPA, Ohio's Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment Program: A Re-
port from Governor George V. Voinovich; April 1998, http://www.epa.
state.oh.us/derr/vap/gov_rept/vapgov.pdf; EPA, Ohio CWSRF Pro-
vides Loans to Brownfields Remediation Projects, http://www.epa.gov/
owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/bfield.pdf; Ohio EPA, Financial Assistance—
Ohio Volunteers are Taking Advantage of VAP/DOD Low-Interest Loan and
Grant Programs, http://www.epa. state.oh.us/derr/vap/newslet-
ter/97summer/fin_assi.html; Ohio EPA, VAP Financial Incentives,
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/vap/leg_report/loans.html; EPA,
Brownfields Success Stones: Cuyahoga Pilot is "Dedicated" to Brownfields
Redevelopment, http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/ bf/html-
doc/ss_cuya.htm
15 NYSDEC, Division of Environmental Remediation Fact Sheet, Brown-
fields Program, http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/der/bfieldfs.html;
NYSEFC, New York State Brownfields Self-Help/Financial Resources
Manual, 2001, http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/der/bfield/brown-
manual.pdf
16 NYSDEC's New York State Brownfields Self-Help/Financial Resources
Manual lists a variety of financing sources and can be found online at
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/der/bfield/brownmanual.pdf
17 NYSDEC, Division of Environmental Remediation Fact Sheet, Brown-
fields Program, http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/der/bfieldfs.html
18 Only barriers to both the Bond Act and CWSRF will be discussed in
detail here. Other barriers to Bond Act financing (not CWSRF funding)
include the required 25 percent funds match that municipalities must
provide to acquire Bond Act financing and the limited ability of munic-
ipalities to apply state and federal funds toward this match require-
ment. Proposed amendments include requiring only a 10 percent match
for municipalities with populations of less than 75,000 and allowing
municipalities to apply other state and federal funds to the required
funds match.
19 Basic information on New Mexico's CWSRF program can be found
online at http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/cpb/cwsrf.html. Additional
information about New Mexico's priority system can be found online at
http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/cpb/cwsrf.doc (New Mexico Environ-
ment Department, New Mexico Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) Priority System Policies and Procedures, Fiscal Year 2000
through 2005) and http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/cpb/PriorRtng
Syst.doc (New Mexico Environment Department, Priority Rating System
for Point Source, Non-Point Source, and Brownfields Redevelopment Projects]
20 Maryland Department of the Environment's Water Quality Financing
Administration, Linked-Deposit web page,
http://www.mde.state.md.us/wqfa/linked%20deposit3.html
21 EPA, Funding MTBE Prevention and Remediation Projects with the
CWSRF, EPA 832-F-00-004, August 2000, http://www.epa.gov/owm/
cwfinance/cwsrf/srf_mtbe.pdf
22 EPA, Funding MTBE Prevention and Remediation Projects with the
CWSRF, EPA 832-F-00-004, August 2000, http://www.epa.gov/owm/
cwfinance/cwsrf/srf_mtbe.pdf; Wyoming Department of Environmen-
tal Quality, Wyoming State Water Pollution Control Revolving Loan Ac-
count 2001 Intended Use Plan, October 2000, http://deq.state.wy.us/
wqd/w&ww/02014-doc.pdf
23 As a participant in EPA's Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pi-
lots program, a community receives up to $200,000 over two years for
brownfields site assessment and to test cleanup methods and redevel-
opment models. The RENEW Plan became a pilot in the summer of
1999. (Source: EPA, EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot: War-
ren, OH, http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/html-doc/warren.htm)
24 EPA, Environmental News Release, PCB Cleanup Completed at Mahon-
ingside Power Plant Site, http://www.epa.gov/region5/news/news01/
Olopa028.htm; EPA, Environmental News Release; Business Journal
Online, Mahoningside Power Plant Site Gets Clean Bill of Health, March
2001, http://www.business- journal.com/LateMarch01/Mahon-
ingsideready.html
25 EPA, Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot: Toledo, OH,
http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/html-doc/toledo.htm
26 Davis, Todd S. Stickney West Industrial Park, a paper presented at the
"Profiling the Ottawa River Conference," September 27, 2000
38
-------
27 Contaminants of concern (COCs) in all media included metals, am-
monia, cyanide, and several volatile organic compounds. Semivolatile
organic compounds and pesticides were COCs in soils, sediments, and
groundwater, and PCBs were COCs in soils and sediments. (Source: En-
vironmental Assessment for SWIP Parcel 1)
28 An early Clean Water Act financing program was the Title II Con-
struction Grants Program, an EPA-administered program which pro-
vided more than $60 billion in grants for publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) and wastewater-related projects through the 1970s and
1980s. Funded projects included the rehabilitation of existing sewer sys-
tems, the control of combined sewer overflows, and the construction of
sewage treatment plants, pumping stations, and collection lines and in-
terceptors. However, as the costs of these types of projects increased
throughout the 1980s, so did the popularity of this program, causing it
to become a victim of its own success. In Title VI of the Clean Water Act
amendments of 1987 (33 USC 1381-1387), Congress ended appropria-
tions for this federally-run grants program and replaced it with a more
flexible and cost-effective revolving loan fund, hence, the genesis of the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). (EPA, How the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund Program Works, http://www.epa.gov/ owm/cwfi-
nance/cwsrf/basics.htm)
29 POTWs are defined in Section 212 of the CWA as "any devices and sys-
tems used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of munic-
ipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature." (33 USC 1292) Point
source pollution can be traced to a single source or pipe, such as a fac-
tory or wastewater treatment plant, whereas "nonpoint source pollution
is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground
and carrying natural and human-made pollutants into lakes, rivers,
streams, wetlands, estuaries, other coastal waters, and ground water. At-
mospheric deposition and hydrologic modification are also sources of
nonpoint pollution." (EPA, What is Nonpoint Source Pollution? Questions
and Answers, http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/qa.html)
80 EPA, State Allotments web page, http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfi-
nance/cwsrf/cwsrfallots.pdf
81 CWA Title VI, 33 USC 1382; State Revolving Fund Program Implementa-
tion Regulations, 40 CFR 35.3135
32 EPA, Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Audit Guide, June 1998, http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/
cwsrfallots.pdf
"EPA, Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Audit Guide, June 1998, http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/
cwsrfallots.pdf; CWA Title VI, 33 USC 1382(b); State Revolving Fund Pro-
gram Implementation Regulations, 40 CFR 35.3135(b)
84 Connecticut's Clean Water Fund is the state's environmental infra-
structure assistance program and is comprised of the state Water Pollu-
tion Control account, the federal Clean Water State Revolving Fund ac-
count, the Long Island Sound cleanup account, the River Restoration
account, and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund account (Source:
http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/cwa/cwfund.htm). New Jersey's En-
vironmental Infrastructure Financing Program is comprised of the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (Source: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/mface.htmSfinance).
Wisconsin's Environmental Improvement Fund (EIF) is comprised of
the Clean Water Fund Program, the Safe Drinking Water Loan Pro-
gram, and the Land Recycling Loan Program; the EIF is jointly man-
aged and administered by the Department of Natural Resources and
Department of Administration. Funds for the brownfield program
come from repayments of loans issued through the Clean Water Fund
(Source: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cfa/EL/right.html).
85 CWA Title VI, 33 USC 1384(b); State Revolving Fund Program Implemen-
tation Regulations, 40 CFR 35.3110(g)(4)
86 Adapted from the CWA Title VI, 33 USC 1383(d); State Revolving Fund
Program Implementation Regulations, 40 CFR 35.3120
87 As specified in Section 319 of the CWA, a Nonpoint Source Manage-
ment Program (NSMP) is a state's framework for controlling NFS pol-
lution, given the existing and potential water quality problems de-
scribed in the NPS pollution assessment report, the precursor to the
NSMP. (EPA, Nonpoint Source Management Program, Pointer No. 4, EPA
841-F-96-004D, http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/facts/point4.htm)
88 The Brownfields Revitalization Act, signed into law on January 11,
2002, defines brownfields as "real property, the expansion, redevelop-
ment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or poten-
tial presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant."
89USTs typically store hazardous substances and petroleum or petro-
leum-based substances, such as motor and jet fuels, fuel oils, lubricants,
petroleum solvents, and used oil. Although they are federally regu-
lated, they can pose threats to surface water and groundwater if they
leak due to abandonment and neglect. Costs of cleanup are not typi-
cally covered under Superfund, but acquiring funding through the
CWSRF can be possible in some states. (EPA, Overview of the Federal
UST Program, http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/overview.htm)
"CWA Title VI, 33 USC 1383(c); State Revolving Fund Program Implemen-
tation Regulations, 40 CFR 35.3115
41 EPA, The Clean Water State Revolving Fund Funding Framework, EPA
832-B-96-005, October 1996, http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/
cwsrf/framewrk.pdf
42 EPA, Financing America's Clean Water Since 1987: A Report of Progress
and Innovation, EPA 832-R-00-011, May 2001, http://www.epa.gov/
owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/progress.pdf
48EPA, Integrated Planning and Priority Setting in the Clean Water State Re-
volvingFund Program, EPA 832-R-01-002, March 2001,http://www.epa.
gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/ipps_web.pdf; EPA, Regional Role in Inte-
grated Planning & Priority Setting System Development, http://www.epa.
gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/ispseval.pdf
^EPA, Integrated Planning and Priority Setting in the Clean Water State Re-
volvingFund Program, EPA 832-R-01-002, March 2001, http://www.epa.
gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/ipps_web.pdf; EPA, Regional Role in Inte-
grated Planning & Priority Setting System Development, http://www.epa.
gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/ispseval.pdf
45 EPA, The Clean Water State Revolving Fund Funding Framework, EPA
832-B-96-005, October 1996, http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/
cwsrf/framewrk.pdf
46EPA, Integrated Planning and Priority Setting in the Clean Water State Re-
volvingFund Program, EPA 832-R-01-002, March 2001, http://www.epa.
gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/ipps_web.pdf; EPA, Regional Role in Inte-
grated Planning & Priority Setting System Development, http://www.epa.
gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/ispseval.pdf
47 Adapted from EPA, The Clean Water State Revolving Fund: How to Fund
Nonpoint Source and Estuary Enhancement Projects, EPA 909-K-97-001,
July 1997, http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/final.pdf
"CWA Title VI, 33 USC 1383(d); State Revolving Fund Program Implemen-
tation Regulations, 40 CFR 35.3120
"EPA, Funding Brownfield Remediation with the Clean Water State Revolv-
ing Fund Factsheet, EPA 832-F-98-006, October 1998 http://www.epa.
gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/brown.pdf; EPA, Brownfields Remediation
Through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, EPA 832-F-01-007, October
2001, http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/brownfield_
studies.pdf.
50CWA Title VI, 33 USC 1386(c); State Revolving Fund Program Implemen-
tation Regulations, 40 CFR 35.3150.
51 CWA Title VI, 33 USC 1386(d); State Revolving Fund Program Implemen-
tation Regulations, 40 CFR 35.3165
52 EPA, Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Audit Guide, June 1998, http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/
srfguide.pdf
58EPA, Financing America's Clean Water Since 1987: A Report of Progress
and Innovation, May 2001, EPA 832-R-00-011, http://www.epa.gov/
owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/progress.pdf
aEPA, Financing America's Clean Water Since 1987: A Report of Progress
and Innovation, May 2001, EPA 832-R-00-011, http://www.epa.gov/
owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/progress.pdf
^EPA, Implementation of Transfers in the Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund Programs: Report to Congress, October 2000, EPA
816-R-00-021, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/rtc-transfer.pdf
5'EPA, Financing America's Clean Water Since 1987: A Report of Progress
and Innovation, May 2001, EPA 832-R-00-011, http://www.epa.gov/
owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/progress.pdf
SEPA, Clean Water State Revolving Fund Factsheet, EPA 832-F-99-051,
May 1999, http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/cwsrf.pdf;
EPA, The Clean Water State Revolving Fund: Financing America's Environ-
mental Infrastructure-A Report of Progress, EPA 832-R-95-001, May 2001,
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/progress.pdf
39
-------
58 EPA, The Clean Water State Revolving Fund: Financing America's Envi-
ronmental Infrastructure-A Report of Progress, EPA 832-R-95-001, May
2001, http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/progress.pdf
^EPA, Cleaning Up Polluted Runoff with the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund, EPA 832-F-98-001, March 1998, http://www.epa.gov/owm/
cwfinance/cwsrf/npsfact.pdf
'°EPA, Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program, http://www.epa.
gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/index.htm; EPA, Funding Brownfield Reme-
diation with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Factsheet, EPA 832-F-98-
006, October 1998, http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/
brown.pdf; EPA, Financing America's Clean Water Since 1987: A Report of
Progress and Innovation, EPA 832-R-00-011, May 2001, http://www.epa.
gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/progress.pdf
61 EPA's Office of Wastewater Management partners with states to peri-
odically conduct a Clean Water Needs Survey (CWNS), per Sections
205(a) and 516(b)(l) of the CWA. Its purpose is three-fold: to prioritize
needs, encourage holistic watershed planning, and to identify best
management practices. EPA defines a 'need' as a cost estimate for a
project that could be eligible for CWSRF funding, and needs are re-
ported by states based on existing data (e.g. 303(d) lists). Data are sum-
marized in a report to Congress which estimates the clean water needs
for the nation. (Source: EPA, 1996 CWNS Report to Congress, http://
www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/1996rtc/toc.htm and EPA, Clean Water
Needs Survey, http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm)
a Water Infrastructure Network, Clean & Safe Water for the 21st Century,
2000, http://www.amsa-cleanwater.org/advocacy/winreport/
winreport2000.pdf
63EPA, List of State SRF Contacts, Directors, and Addresses, October 2001,
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/agency.pdf
"EPA, CWSRF Regional Office Information, October 2001,
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/regcon.pdf
4O
-------
by Edith Pepper (1997); $40.
The 1990s have witnessed a deluge of new, innovative
brownfield policies at the local, state, and federal level. But
which policies are truly working "on the ground" to move
projects forward? Lessons from the Field explores this
question by analyzing 20 brownfield projects from around
the country, researching site histories, and interviewing
more than 60 project participants. The result is a series of
"lessons learned" — including innovative financing strate-
gies, creative public-private partnerships, and state volun-
tary cleanup programs. This book, according to EPA Ad-
ministrator Carol Browner, "is a valuable guide to how
communities are joining together to protect the environ-
ment while creating new economic opportunities, new
jobs, new tax revenues — and new hope."
by Charles Bartsch and Bridget Dorfman; (Revised October
2000); $20.
This report focuses on state activities associated with
brownfield cleanup and redevelopment. It reveals how
states are adopting innovative financing and regulatory in-
centives in order to meet brownfield challenges. It also
highlights the economic benefits created by programs in
the 50 states, providing a common ground for analysis and
comparison, while demonstrating the remarkable success
many states already have achieved.
by Julie Gorte (February 1999); $15.
Since traditional methods for treating brownfield sites
often are expensive, time consuming, and sometimes inef-
fective, interest in advanced technologies is growing. This
report explains that with the surge of interest in brown-
field redevelopment, a few new technologies — notably,
soil vapor extraction — have been widely adopted, and a
few others show promise. But the path from "aha!" to mar-
ket is long and difficult for any new technology, and envi-
ronmental technologies are often faced with the additional
hurdle of being driven by regulation rather than market
signals, which often attenuates the demand for innovation.
While acknowledging the progress made in encouraging
innovations in cleanup, this report advises that federal
programs designed to develop, test, and provide standard-
ized information on brownfield cleanup technologies be
maintained and strengthened.
edited by Charles Bartsch (May 1999); $35.
Capital is key to brownfield reuse, and federal and state
policymakers can do much to invite private investment in
brownfield projects. This anthology explores the key issues
and opportunities associated with financing the cleanup
and reuse of contaminated industrial sites. The eleven arti-
cles provide a detailed survey of state and federal initia-
tives; perspectives from lenders, insurers, and real estate
appraisers; as well as profiles of local financing initiatives.
by Paula Duggan (November 1998); $15.
This report explores the workforce dimension of brown-
field renewal and offers local practitioners examples of
how job training and employment can be melded with
environmental restoration. Pointing to the confluence of
brownfields and employment problems, the monograph
encourages the reader to think of the jobs involved and
the skills required at each stage of a brownfield project —
assessment and remediation, new construction, and reuse
— and suggests how particular federal employment and
training resources can be brought into play at each stage.
by Ann Eberhart Goode, Elizabeth Collaton, and David Smallen
(August 1999); $15
Easy access to major transportation facilities is a very
important factor in business location decisions, yet little
research has focused on the relationship of transportation
infrastructure investments and the cleanup and redevelop-
ment of brownfields. This paper describes federal trans-
portation spending and policies, and outlines the manner
in which transportation projects relate to brownfield reuse.
by Charles Bartsch and Bridget Dorfman (Revised October
2000); $35.
The U.S. government has established a multi-agency part-
nership to support cleanup and redevelopment of under-
utilized properties. The programs are diverse and some-
times difficult to access. This inventory, targeted to local
government officials and private-sector practitioners, pro-
vides a summary of each federal agency's brownfield pro-
grams, as well as contact and grant information.
-------
Northeast-Midwest
Institute
218 D Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
tel: 202.544.5200
fax: 202.544.0043
www.nemw.org
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA 542-B-99-005
November 1999
www.epa.gov
Directory of Technology Support
Services to Brownfields Localities
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
BACKGROUND 1
INTRODUCTION 2
LIST OF ACRONYMS 3
SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT SERVICES 4
1.0 EPA BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT CENTER 7
1.1 RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO EPA STAFF 8
2.0 EPA REGIONAL BROWNFIELDS COORDINATORS 9
3.0 EPA NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INFORMATION 10
4.0 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 11
4.1 USAGE HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE CENTER
OF EXPERTISE 12
4.2 USAGE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION
ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY 13
4.3 USAGE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY 14
5.0 NONGOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS (TECHNICAL) 15
5.1 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RESEARCH CENTERS 15
5.1.1 The Northeast HSRC 16
5.1.2 The South/Southwest HSRC 17
5.1.3 Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic HSRC 17
5.1.4 The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain HSRC 18
5.1.5 Western Region HSRC 19
6.0 NONGOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS (INFORMATION) 20
6.1 PUBLIC TECHNOLOGY, INC 20
6.2 CARNEGIE MELLON/UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
BROWNFIELDS CENTER 21
6.3 INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT 22
6.4 INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 23
6.5 BROWNFIELDS NON-PROFITS NETWORK 23
APPENDIX
A Other Resources
B Promoting Innovative Technologies at Brownfields Sites: Fact Sheet
-------
BACKGROUND
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) Technology Innovation Office (TIO) was created in 1990 to advocate the introduction,
acceptance, and use of innovative technologies for the cleanup of Superfund sites. TIO's mission is to
increase the application of innovative technologies for characterizing and cleaning up contaminated waste
sites. Innovative technologies are having a significant positive effect on the cost, scheduling, and
effectiveness of environmental cleanup projects. Innovative technologies have been demonstrated
successfully at numerous Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites and
should be incorporated into brownfields projects, as well. The potential cost savings and the ability to
expedite decisions about site remediation are significant advantages to brownfields redevelopment
projects. "Smart" technology choices that reduce the time or cost necessary to complete investigation and
cleanup can help to make many sites more attractive for redevelopment and reuse.
The stakeholders involved in brownfields projects include city planners, real estate developers,
consultants, citizens' groups, private and public interests groups, financial institutions, technology
developers and vendors, EPA regional brownfields coordinators, and state and tribal brownfields
coordinators. Many of those stakeholders may not have extensive experience with site assessment and
cleanup activities and therefore may not be aware of the full range of technology options available to them.
However, as they begin to make, review, and approve decisions about technologies chosen to investigate
or clean up brownfields properties, it is essential that stakeholders understand the most cost-, time-, and
environmentally effective options.
In 1998, TIO established the Brownfields Technology Support Center to assist brownfields localities and
other stakeholders in assessing and using innovative technologies. The center provides assistance on
site-specific issues, conducts general research of technologies, and prepares guidance and other
information tools, including this directory of technology support services. Additional information about the
center is available at <> or the center's toll free telephone number at 1-
877-838-7220. Brownfields localities also can contact their EPA regional brownfields coordinators for
information or assistance.
-------
INTRODUCTION
This directory provides information about EPA offices, nongovernment organizations funded by EPA, and
other federal agencies, that may be able to provide expertise to assist in the selection of technologies to
characterize and clean up brownfields properties. The directory presents a profile of each entity that
includes:
• Background and location information
• Information about sources of funding
• A description of the area(s) of expertise available
• A discussion of the types of services available
• Contact information, as well as information about how to obtain assistance
The directory also includes:
• A table that summarizes key information about the services described in the directory
• A list of documents that may be of interest to brownfields stakeholders
• A list of Web sites of other organizations that are involved in brownfields projects
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CERI Center for Environmental Research Information
DoD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA REACH IT U.S. Environmental Protection Agency REmediation And Characterization Innovative
Technologies Web Site
HSRC Hazardous Substance Research Center
HTRW Hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste
ICMA International City/County Management Association
IRM Institute for Responsible Management
NAREL National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory
NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory
NPL National Priorities List
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSC On-scene coordinator
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls
PTI Public Technology, Inc.
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RPM Remedial project manager
STLP Superfund Technical Liaison Program
STSC Superfund Technical Support Centers
TAB Technical Assistance to Brownfields
TIO Technology Innovation Office
TOSC Technical Outreach Services for Communities
TNT Trinitrotoluene
TSP Technical Support Project
USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WRAP Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program
-------
SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT SERVICES
Name of Center
Location(s)
Speciality Area
Point(s) of Contact
Internet Home Page Address
EPA Brownfields Technology
Support Center
Washington, D.C.
Innovative technologies
Las Vegas, Nevada
Cincinnati, Ohio
Ada, Oklahoma
Dan Powell, EPATIO
(703)603-7196
Carlos Pachon, EPATIO
(703) 603-9904
Art Glazer, Tetra Tech EM Inc.
(703) 390-0623
Ken Brown, NERL
(702)798-2270
David Reisman, NRMRL
(513)487-2588
Jerry Jones, NRMRL
(580) 436-8593
http://clu-in.org/brownfieldstsc
-------
SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES (continued)
Name of Center
EPA Regional Brownfields
Coordinators
EPA Center for Environmental
Research Information (CERI)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE)
Location(s)
Boston, Massachusetts
New York, New York
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
Atlanta, Georgia
Chicago, Illinois
Dallas, Texas
Kansas City, Kansas
Denver, Colorado
San Francisco, California
Seattle, Washington
Cincinnati, Ohio
38 full-service engineer
districts located
throughout the United
States; primary points of
contact located in
Washington, D.C.
Speciality Area
Assist in the
management of
resources to provide
support to brownfields
projects
Technology transfer
Site remediation and
economic analysis of
design and construction
for reuse of brownfields
Point(s) of Contact
John Podgurski, Region 1
(617)918-1209
Larry D'Andrea, Region 2
(212)637-4314
Tom Stolle, Region 3
(215)814-3129
Mickey Hartnett, Region 4
(404) 562-8661
Joseph Dufficy, Region 5
(312)886-1960
Stan Hitt, Region 6
(214)665-6736
Susan Klein, Region 7
(913)551-7786
Kathie Atencio, Region 8
(303)312-6803
Jim Hanson, Region 9
(415)744-2237
Timothy Brincefield, Region 10
(206)553-2100
Daniel Murray
(513)569-7501
Susan Schock
(513)569-7551
Bill Brasse
(202)761-8879
Jane Mergler
(202)761-5603
Greg Johnson
(202)761-0344
Jack Bickley
(202)761-8892
Internet Home Page Address
http://www. epa.gov/swerosps/bf/
regcntct.htm
http://www. epa.gov/ttbnrmrl
http://www. environmental, usace. arm
y. mil.hq/programs/brown
fields/brownfields. html
-------
SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES (continued)
Name of Center
Hazardous Substance Research
Centers
Public Technology, Inc.
Carnegie Mellon/University of
Pittsburgh Brownfields Center
Institute for Responsible
Management
International City/County
Management Association (ICMA)
Brownfields/Superfund Research
Consortium
Brownfields Non-Profits Network
Location(s)
Newark, New Jersey
(Northeast)
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
(South/Southwest)
Ann Arbor, Michigan
(Great Lakes/Mid-
Atlantic)
Manhattan, Kansas
(Great Plains/Rocky
Mountain)
Stanford, California
(West)
Washington, D.C.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
New Brunswick, New
Jersey
Washington, D.C.
Various
Speciality Area
Technology transfer
Contaminated sediment
Bioremediation
Contaminated soil
Site remediation
Technology transfer
Geographic information
systems
Monitor activities at
brownfields pilot
projects
Facilitate information
exchange among local
governments
Resource center
Point(s) of Contact
Helen Gramcko
(973) 596-5845
Danny Reible
(225) 388-6770
Walter Weber
(313)763-1464
Larry Erickson
(785) 532-2380
Perry McCarty
(650)723-4123
Ronda Mosley-Rovi
(202) 626-2455
Steven Everett
(202) 626-2421
Deborah Lange
(412)268-7121
Chuck Powers
(732)296-1960
David Borak
(202) 962-3506
Various
Internet Home Page Address
http://www. hsrc. org
http://brownfieldstech. org
http://www. ce. emu. edu/brown
fields
http://www.instrm.org/index.html
http://www. icma. org/abouticma/
programs/sbri. cfm
http://www. brownfieldsnet. org/
-------
1.0 I
Background:
Location:
Source of Funding:
Speciality Areas:
General Services
Offered:
Process for
Requesting
Assistance:
Points of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
EPA BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT CENTER
Coordinated through EPA OSWER's TIO, the Brownfields Technology
Support Center ensures that brownfields decision makers are aware of the full
range of technologies available and are able to make "smart" technology
decisions for their sites. The center provides a readily accessible resource for
unbiased assessments and supporting information about options relevant to
specific sites. The center also will provide a technology-oriented process for
reviewing cleanup plans for those sites.
The center works through EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD)
laboratories in Cincinnati, Ohio; Ada, Oklahoma; and Las Vegas, Nevada to
provide the expertise and information necessary to help brownfields decision
makers determine whether innovative options are available and feasible for
their sites.
EPA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
EPA
Each of the three laboratories provide expertise related to various speciality
areas that include:
• National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL), Las Vegas, Nevada
- site characterization technologies and monitoring
• National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), Ada,
Oklahoma
- groundwater remediation
• NRMRL, Cincinnati, Ohio
- engineering research and development
Reviews of documents
Technology scoping for site assessment or investigation technologies and
for cleanup technologies
Descriptions of technologies
Reviews of literature and electronic resources
Support for demonstrations
Localities can submit requests through their EPA regional brownfields
coordinators. In addition, localities can submit requests through the Internet
at <> or by calling the center's toll free
telephone number at 1 (877) 838-7220.
Dan Powell, EPA TIO
(703) 603-7196 or powell.dan@epa.gov
Carlos Pachon, EPA TIO
(703) 603-9904 or pachon.carlos@epa.gov
Ken Brown, NERL, Las Vegas
(702) 798-2270 or brown.ken@epa.gov
David Reisman, NRMRL, Cincinnati
(513) 487-2588 or reisman.david@epa.gov
Jerry Jones, NRMRL, Ada
(580) 436-8593 orjones.jerry@epa.gov
Art Glazer, Tetra Tech EM Inc. (support contractor)
(703) 390-0623 or glazera@ttemi.com
<>
-------
1.1 RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO EPA STAFF
Background:
Additional resources at EPA are available to staff of EPA to assist brownfields
localities. Those resources include:
• EPA Superfund Technical Liaison Program (STLP): In 1990, EPA ORD
and OSWER created the STLP to expand the technical support available
to regional Superfund staff. ORD assigns senior scientists and engineers
to serve as technical liaisons, who are located in EPA regional hazardous
waste program offices.
• EPA Technical Support Project (TSP): EPA OSWER, ORD, and regional
waste management offices established the TSP in 1987 to provide
technical assistance to regional remedial project managers (RPM) and
on-scene coordinators (OSC). The project consists of a network of
regional forums, specialized technical centers located in ORD
laboratories, and OSWER's environmental response team. The technical
centers and forums include:
- EPA Superfund Technical Support Centers (STSC): The objectives of
the STSC include: provide technical support and assistance to
regional staff, improve communications among EPA regional offices
and ORD laboratories, and ensure coordination and consistency in the
application of remedial technologies. In addition, the centers may
provide support for issues related to brownfields at non-NPL sites
through the Brownfields Technology Support Center described in
section 1.0 of this directory.
- EPA Regional Forums: EPA regional technical personnel have
established three forums within TSP, the Engineering Forum, the
Ground Water Forum, and the Federal Facilities Forum. Each of the
forums work to improve communications and assist in technology
transfer between the regional offices and the STSCs. The forums also
serve as technical resources and distribute information developed by
the TSP. Members of the forums meet semiannually to discuss
technical and policy issues, new technologies and to network with other
federal agencies.
Location:
STLP: Most EPA regional offices
STSCs:
• NERL, Las Vegas, Nevada
• NRMRL, Cincinnati, Ohio
• NRMRL, Ada, Oklahoma
• National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio
• National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL),
Montgomery, Alabama
Regional Forums:
• Engineering Forum
• Ground Water Forum
• Federal Facilities Forum
Process for
Requesting
Assistance:
Localities can submit requests through their brownfields coordinators.
Section 2.0 of this directory provides a list of brownfields coordinators for
each regional office.
Internet Home Page:
STSCs: «http://www. clu-in. org/tsp/tscs.htm»
-------
2.0 EPA REGIONAL BROWNFIELDS COORDINATORS
Background:
Location:
Source of Funding:
Areas of Expertise:
Process for
Requesting
Assistance:
Points of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
Each EPA regional office has identified a central point of contact responsible
for receiving and disseminating information about the region's brownfields
activities.
Each EPA regional office
EPA
Each EPA regional office has assembled a team of brownfields coordinators
to work with the pilot projects that have been awarded in that region. Those
individuals have extensive experience in the Superfund and RCRA programs,
in site characterization and remediation, and selection and use of innovative
technologies. Some members of the regional brownfields teams also are
former RPMs, OSCs, and site assessment managers.
Contact the individuals listed below.
John Podgurski, EPA Region 1
(617) 918-1209 or podgurski.john@epa.gov
Larry D'Andrea, EPA Region 2
(212) 637-4314 or dandrea.larry@epa.gov
Tom Stolle, EPA Region 3
(215) 814-3129 orstolle.tom@epa.gov
Michael Hartnett, EPA Region 4
(404) 562-8661 or hartnett.y@epa.gov
Joseph Dufficy, EPA Region 5
(312) 886-1960 or dufficy.joseph@epa.gov
Stanley Hitt, EPA Region 6
(214) 665-6736 or hitt.stanley@epa.gov
Susan Klein, EPA Region 7
(913) 551-7786 or klein.susan@epa.gov
Kathie Atencio, EPA Region 8
(303) 312-6803 or atencio.kathie@epa.gov
James Hanson, EPA Region 9
(415) 744-2237 or hanson.jim@epa.gov
Timothy Brincefield, EPA Region 10
(206) 553-2100 or brincefield.timothy@epa.gov
<> (Lists the
team for each region.)
entire Brownfields
-------
3.0 EPA NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INFORMATION
Background:
Location:
Source of Funding:
Speciality Areas:
General Services
Offered:
Process for
Requesting
Assistance:
Points of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
EPA CERI serves as the focal point at EPA ORD for the dissemination of
scientific and technical infomration to the public and other government
agencies. CERI is responsible for planning, coordinating, reviewing, and
conducting a comprehensive program to distribute recent advancements in
risk management approaches for use by regulated industry; regulatory and
permitting officials; and the environmental consulting community. Among its
products are technical and nontechnical publications, software products, and
technical meetings to inform stakeholders of the results of research
conducted by EPA and other organizations.
Cincinnati, Ohio
EPA
CERI can provide support in the following areas:
• Watershed management, infrastructures, and decentralized wastewater
systems
Biosolids and urban wet weather
Ecosystem restoration
Drinking water treatment optimization
Hazardous waste remediation particularly innovative treatment
technologies
Brownfields sustainability
Risk communication, children's health, and persistent bioaccumulative
toxics
• Pollution prevention
CERI has experience providing the following services:
• Technical assistance
• Workshops and seminars
• Guidance documents and technical resources
Localities can submit requests directly to the points of contact listed below.
Daniel Murray, Chief
(513)569-7551
For Brownfields related assistance:
Sue Schock
(513)569-7551
«htip://www. epa.gov/tibn rmrl»
10
-------
4.0 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Background:
Members or
Location:
Source of Funding:
Speciality Areas:
General Services
Offered:
Process for
Requesting
Assistance:
Point of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
Through its traditional water resources development program, its "support for
others" program and, its military program, USAGE provides engineering,
construction, water resources, and environmental management services for
public sector clients (such as other federal agencies, states, and
municipalities). Experienced in collaborative actions and adept at helping
municipalities identify federal resources and integrate the "federal team" into
an effort, USAGE has the capacity to expand partnerships. Under its
integrated approach, USAGE seeks more comprehensive solutions to such
issues as urban watersheds, revitalization of infrastructure, water supply,
combined sewer overflows, environmental restoration, cleanup of hazardous
waste, and other issues that affect reuse of brownfields. USAGE has
established a network of brownfields specialists throughout the country. The
Internet home page listed below identifies district-level points of contact. In
addition, USAGE has two centers that are described in sections 6.1 and 6.2 of
this directory.
• District-level brownfields support staff at various locations throughout the
United States
• Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Center of Expertise, Omaha,
Nebraska
• Waterways Experiment Station Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg,
Mississippi
• Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois
Congressional appropriations and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD),
and other federal agencies
• Planning assistance
• Site assessment
• Remedial design and construction
• Economic analysis of design and construction alternatives for the reuse of
brownfields
• Rapid-response removal of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste
(HTRW)
• Habitat restoration
• Contract administration
• Project management
USAGE has experience in all aspects of:
• Site assessment
• Site remediation
• Sustainable reuse
Localities can submit requests to the point of contact listed below.
Bill Brasse, Headquarters Brownfields Coordinator
(202)761-8879
<
-------
4.1 USAGE HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE CENTER OF EXPERTISE
Background:
Location:
Speciality Areas:
General Services
Offered:
Point of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
The USAGE Hazardous Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Center of Expertise
focuses on environmental remediation and other environmental compliance
issues.
Omaha, Nebraska
Innovative technologies
The center can provide support in the following areas nationwide:
Compliance: environmental regulation and laws
Environmental and ecological risk assessment
Health and safety
Chemical, environmental, and geotechnical engineering
Geology
Chemistry
Health physics
Contracting
Cost recovery
Review of project documents
Technology transfer
Discipline-specific technical assistance
Training
Development of guidance documents
Site visits
Johnnie Shockley
(402) 697-2558
«http://www. en viron mental, usace. army. mil/»
12
-------
4.2 USAGE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
Background:
Location:
Speciality Areas:
General Services
Offered:
Point of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
The USAGE Waterways Experiment Station Environmental Laboratory is the
primary research, testing, and development facility of USAGE. Its mission is
to conceive, plan, study, and execute engineering investigations and research
and development studies.
Vicksburg, Mississippi
Dredging (Center for Contaminated Sediments)
Cultural preservation (Center for Cultural Site Preservation Technology)
Ecosystem modeling
Environmental information analysis
Environmental modeling simulation and research
- land modeling, dredged material and disposal computer modeling,
water quality modeling
Long-term effects of dredging operations
Biotreatment
Characterization and monitoring of ecosystems
Phytoremediation
Threatened and endangered species
Water quality
Wetlands
Technical support for dredging operations
Conservation assistance program
Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program (WRAP)
The laboratory can provide the following services nationwide:
• Technical and regulatory assistance
• Workshops, training opportunities, and seminars
• Technology transfer
• Research and development related to contaminated sediments
John Keeley, Acting Director
(601)634-3477
<>
13
-------
4.3 USAGE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY
Background:
Members or
Location:
Speciality Areas:
General Services
Offered:
Point of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
The USAGE Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, established
in
1969, researches and develops methods and technology aimed at increasing
the efficient construction and the operation and maintenance of facilities
(buildings), while ensuring environmental quality and safety at a reduced
cycle cost.
life-
Champaign, Illinois
Development of infrastructure and environmental sustainment technologies.
The laboratory can provide the following services nationwide:
Revitalization of facilities:
Seismic evaluation and rehabilitation for facilities
Redesign of facility delivery processes
Enduring building systems
Advanced infrastructure materials systems
Green building design
Operations
• Operation, maintenance, and repair technologies
• Energy
Conservation
Management of threatened and endangered species
Erosion control
Land use planning
Archeological resources
Historical structures
Michael J. O'Connor, Director
(217)373-6714
«http://www. cecer. army. mil/»
14
-------
5.0 NONGOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS (TECHNICAL)
The nongovernment organizations described in this section have been established to provide a national
program of basic and applied research, technology transfer, training, and outreach.
5.1 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RESEARCH CENTERS
Background:
Members or
Location:
Source of Funding:
Speciality Areas
General Services
Offered:
Process for
Requesting
Assistance:
Point of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
EPA has established the Hazardous Substance Research Centers (HSRC)
program to develop better, cheaper, faster, and safer methods of assessing
and cleaning up hazardous substances. HSRCs conduct their activities on a
regional basis through five multiuniversity centers that focus on different
aspects of the management of hazardous substances. The centers bring
together researchers representing a variety of disciplines to collaborate on
integrated research projects, involving both immediate practical problems of
hazardous substance management and long-term exploratory research.
The Northeast HSRC at the New Jersey Institute of Technology
The South/Southwest HSRC at Louisiana State University
The Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic HSRC at the University of Michigan
The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain HSRC at Kansas State University
The Western Region HSRC at Stanford University
The HSRCs were established competitively and are funded primarily by EPA,
with additional funding from the Department of Energy (DOE) and DoD. The
program also receives funding from academia, private industry, and other
state and federal government agencies.
Research, technology transfer, and training
• Provide the technical Outreach Services For Communities (TOSC)
Program, a no-cost, nonadvocacy technical assistance program that has
guided numerous communities through the environmental cleanup and
site reuse process and:
- Answers questions about potential health effects and possible cleanup
technologies for hazardous waste sites
- Assists members of communities in becoming active participants in the
decision-making process involved in cleaning up hazardous
environments
- Sponsors community workshops and provides educational material
about human health, environmental risks, and regulatory concerns
• Provide the Technical Assistance to Brownfields (TAB) Program, which
provides technical assistance and training to communities
• Review and interpret technical documents and other materials
• Sponsor workshops, short courses, and other learning experiences to
explain basic science and environmental policy
• Provide information to community members about existing technical
assistance materials, such as publications, videos, and Web sites
• Train community leaders in leadership and facilitation
• Provide technical assistance materials tailored to the identified needs of a
community in which brownfields properties are located
Localities can submit requests through the centers identified in sections 4.1
through 4.5 of this directory.
Dale Manty, Program Director
(202) 564-6922 or manty.dale@epa.gov
«http://www. hsrc. org»
15
-------
5.1.1 The Northeast HSRC
Background:
Members or
Location:
Speciality Areas
General Services
Offered:
Point of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
The Northeast HSRC was established in 1989 to conduct basic and applied
research, technology transfer, and training in EPA regions 1 and 2. The
Northeast HSRC's research agenda reflects the attributes of regions 1 and 2,
including its aging industrial base, dense population, economic activity, high
concentration of chemical and pharmaceutical industries, and rapidly
developing base of high-technology industry. Another factor that shapes the
center's research focus is the large number of sites in the two regions that are
on the National Priorities List (NPL) and that are affected by groundwater
contamination.
The New Jersey Institute of Technology, the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Princeton University, Rutgers University, the Stevens Institute of
Technology, Tufts University, and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of
New Jersey
Technology transfer and application of innovative technologies
Development and demonstration of treatment and remediation technologies in
four areas:
• Incineration and thermal treatment
• Site characterization and monitoring
• In-situ remediation
• Ex-situ treatment processes
Helen Gramcko
(973) 596-5845
«htip://www. cees.njit. edu/nhsrc/»
16
-------
5.1.2 The South/Southwest HSRC
Background:
Members or
Location:
Speciality Areas:
General Services
Offered:
Point of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
The South/Southwest HSRC, established in 1991, conducts research and
technology transfer activities designed to promote risk-based management
and control of hazardous substances for EPA regions 4 and 6. This HSRC
focuses its efforts on contaminated sediments and dredged materials that
contain organic contaminants, metals, and conventional pollutants.
Louisiana State University, the Georgia Institute of Technology, and Rice
University
Contaminated sediment
Remediation of contaminated sediments and dredged materials, with projects
focused on:
• In-situ chemical mobilization processes in beds and confined disposal
facilities
• In-situ remediation
• In-situ detection
Research theme areas include:
• Availability of contaminants in sediments
• Biotransformation processes of contaminants in sediments
• Science of risk management for sediments
• Regional issues related to hazardous substances
Danny D. Reible, Director
(225) 388-6770
<>
5.1.3 Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic HSRC
Background:
Members or
Location:
Speciality Areas:
General Services
Offered:
Point of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
The Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic HSRC, established in 1989, supports EPA
regions 3 and 5 in addressing crucial issues related to hazardous substances.
The center's efforts focus on the development and application of
bioremediation technologies for contaminated soils and groundwater. Current
research projects include studies of soil contaminant sorption, desorption, and
sequestration properties.
University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Howard University
Bioremediation
• Improving understanding of fundamental processes of in-situ
bioremediation
• Distributing videos and publications about bioremediation
Walter J. Weber, Director
(313)763-1464
«http://www. engin. umich. edu/dept/cee/research/HSRC/index.html»
17
-------
Background:
Members or
Location:
Speciality Areas:
General Services
Offered:
Point of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
5.1.4 The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain HSRC
The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain HSRC, established in 1989, serves EPA
regions 7 and 8. The center conducts research pertaining to hazardous
substances produced through agriculture, forestry, mining, mineral
processing, and other activities.
Haskell Indian Nations University, Kansas State University, Lincoln University,
Montana State University, South Dakota State University, the University of
Iowa, the University of Missouri, the University of Montana, the University of
Nebraska, the University of Utah, the University of Wyoming, Utah State
University, Colorado State University, and the University of Northern Iowa
Contaminated soils and mining wastes
Remediation of contaminated soils and mining wastes, with specific research
interests that include:
Soil and water contaminated with heavy metals
Soil and groundwater contaminated by organic chemicals
Wood preservatives that contaminate groundwater
Pesticides identified as hazardous substances
Improved technologies and methods of characterizing and analyzing
contaminated soil
• Methods of and technologies for waste minimization and pollution
prevention
• Phytoremediation
Larry Erickson, Director
(785) 532-2380
«http://www. engg.ksu. edu/HSRC/home.html»
18
-------
Background:
Members or
Location:
Speciality Areas:
General Services
Offered:
Point of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
5.1.5 Western Region HSRC
The Western Region HSRC, established in 1989, serves EPA regions 9 and
10. The objectives of the center are: (1) to promote the development of
alternative and advanced physical, chemical, and biological processes for
treatment of hazardous substances; (2) to disseminate the results of research
to the industrial and regulatory communities; and (3) to promote a better
understanding of the scientific capability to detect, assess, and mitigate risks
associated with the use and disposal of hazardous substances. Groundwater
cleanup and site remediation, with a strong emphasis on biological
approaches, represent the major focus of the center's activities.
Stanford University and Oregon State University
Site remediation accomplished by biological approaches
Research focuses on groundwater cleanup and site remediation, including:
Chlorinated and nonchlorinated solvents
Halogenated aromatic compounds such as pentachlorophenol and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)
Nonhalogenated aromatics including petroleum derivatives
Ordnance wastes, such as trinitrotoluene (TNT)
Heavy metals
Evaluation of factors that affect the transport and fate of the above
chemicals in the environment
• Design and management issues for site remediation
Perry McCarty, Director
(650)723-4123
<>
19
-------
6.0 NONGOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS (INFORMATION)
Although the organizations may not provide direct "technical" support, they are included in the directory
listed below as additional sources of information for brownfields localities. The organizations perform
the work described with funding from EPA.
6.1 PUBLIC TECHNOLOGY, INC.
Background:
Location:
Source of Funding:
Speciality Areas:
General Services
Offered:
Process for
Requesting
Assistance:
Points of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
In 1998, Public Technology, Inc. (PTI) entered into a cooperative agreement
with EPA TIO to focus on the outreach of development, demonstration, and
promotion of innovative characterization and remediation technologies for
local governments. PTI was selected as a partner in the effort primarily for
three reasons:
• PTI's membership: an extensive national network of local government
officials allows PTI to reach technology decision makers at the local level
• PTI's 27 year track record of testing, promoting, and commercializing
technology through its networks
• PTI's ability to work closely with its sponsoring organizations, The National
League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the
International City/County Management Association (ICMA), which provide
PTI with its policy direction and which, working with PTI, reach more than
39,000 units of local government.
Washington, D.C.
EPA
Outreach and promotion of innovative characterization and remediation
technologies
PTI provides an Internet home page to keep elected and appointed officials of
local government and their professional, scientific, and technical staff up- to-
date on innovations in the development and application of brownfields
remediation technologies. The information can assist local governments in
increasing efficiencies and reducing costs associated with reclamation and
redevelopment of brownfields.
Localities can contact the individuals listed below.
Ronda Mosely-Rovi, Director, Environmental Programs
(202) 626-2455 or mosley-rovi@pti.mw.dc.us
Steven Everett, Brownfields Coordinator
(202) 626-2421 or webmanager@brownfieldstech.org
«http://brownfieldstech. org»
20
-------
6.2 CARNEGIE MELLON/UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH BROWNFIELDS CENTER
Background:
Location:
Source of Funding:
Speciality Areas:
General Services
Offered:
Process for
Requesting
Assistance:
Point of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
The Carnegie Mellon/University of Pittsburgh Brownfields Center attempts to
improve the brownfields revitalization process by enabling scholars in
engineering, the social sciences, economics, and the arts to develop a
comprehensive, multilevel understanding of the challenges community
leaders face as they seek to return brownfields to productive use. By applying
interdisciplinary research teams to all levels of the process, the center
develops a collection of prototype decision support systems and distributes
them to those working in brownfields redevelopment.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
The University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University and EPA
Geographic information systems and information technology
• Analysis of community perceptions of brownfields projects
• Measurement of the costs and benefits of brownfields projects
• Analysis of issues related to waterfront development
• Analysis of issues related to transportation
Localities can submit requests to the point of contact below.
Deborah Lange, Director
(412) 268-7121 or dlange@andrew.cmu.edu
«http://www. ce. emu. edu/brownfields/»
21
-------
6.3 INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT
Background:
Location:
Source of Funding:
Speciality Areas:
General Services
Offered:
Process for
Requesting
Assistance:
Point of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
The Institute for Responsible Management (IRM) is a nonprofit 501 (c)(3)
organization chartered to foster collaboration and cooperation between the
public and private sectors on public policy issues related, but not limited, to
environmental, public safety, and health concerns. For the past three years,
IRM has been involved integrally in working with EPA brownfields pilot
communities to show that cleanup and reuse strategies can be identified
through coordination of local initiatives.
New Brunswick, New Jersey
EPA provides support to IRM for the conduct of research and the
dissemination of information about its findings.
Collecting and disseminating information
IRM maintains a database of products, programs, models, and tasks
identified by each responding pilot program as components of its overall
brownfields strategy. Brownfields pilot programs were asked to provide a
brief description of each product, program, model, or task; indicate the status
of its progress; and identify the appropriate contacts from whom additional
information is available.
Localities can submit requests to the point of contact listed below.
Chuck Powers, President
(732) 296-1960, or cwpowers@instrm.org
<>
22
-------
6.4 INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
Background:
Location:
Source of Funding:
Speciality Areas:
General Services
Offered:
Point of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
ICMA sponsors, develops, and implements a number of programs that
provide managers and administrators in local governments with expertise on
a variety of topics. One area in which ICMA can offer expertise is the
Brownfields/Superfund Consortium, which helps local governments address
the financial, legal, technical, and public health concerns associated with
brownfields and Superfund sites. Membership in the consortium is not sold to
individuals, but rather to cities or counties. Dues are based on population.
The benefits of membership include opportunities for dialogue with EPA,
Congress, and industry and access to information, resources and technical
assistance from other members and ICMA staff.
Washington, D.C.
ICMA receives funding from EPA to help support the Brownfields/Superfund
Consortium.
Information and networking
• Generate strategies or initiatives to solve problems related to brownfields
• Conduct collaborative research and development on brownfields topics
David Borak
(202) 962-3506
«htip://www. icma. org/»
6.5 BROWNFIELDS NON-PROFITS NETWORK
Background:
Members or
Location:
Source of Funding:
Speciality Areas:
Points of Contact:
Internet Home Page:
The Brownfields Non-Profits Network is a network of nonprofit organizations
that help to promote the redevelopment of brownfields properties throughout
the United States. The network's Internet home page can assist community
groups and other organizations in finding out more about what they can do
with abandoned contaminated sites and where they can obtain help in their
efforts.
Members include such organizations as the National Brownfields Association,
the Council for Urban Economic Development, and the Center for Land
Renewal.
The Center for Land Renewal, with support from the Howard H. and Vira 1.
Heinz Foundation
Information resource
Tom Colangelo, National Brownfields Association
(847) 870-8208 or bfnews@flash.net
Ed Gilliland, Council for Urban Economic Development
(202) 223-4735
<
-------
APPENDIX A
OTHER RESOURCES
-------
OTHER RESOURCES
EPA, ORD. 1998. Cost Estimating Tools and Resources for Addressing Sites Under the Brownfields
Initiative, EPA/625/R-99/001. April.
EPA, ORD. 1999. Technical Approaches to Characterizing and Cleaning Up Automotive Repair Sites
Under the Brownfields Initiative, EPA/625/R-98/008. February.
EPA, ORD. 1998. Technical Approaches to Characterizing and Cleaning Up Iron and Steel Mill Sites
Under the Brownfields Initiative, EPA/625/R-98/007. December.
EPA, ORD. 1999. Technical Approaches to Characterizing and Cleaning Up Metal Finishing Sites Under
the Brownfields Initiative, EPA/625/R-98/006. March.
EPA, OSWER. 1998. Quality Assurance Guidance for Conducting Brownfields Site Assessments, EPA
540-R-98-038. September.
EPA, OSWER. 1999. Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for Brownfields
Investigation and Cleanup, Second Edition EPA-542-B-99-009.
EPA, OSWER. Tool Kit of Information Resources for Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup, CD-Rom.
A-1
-------
APPENDIX B
PROMOTING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
AT BROWNFIELDS SITES: FACT SHEET
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102G)
EPA542-R-01-006
July 2001
www.brownfieldstsc.org
www.epa.gov/TIO
&EPA
Brownfields Technology Primer:
Selecting and Using Phytoremediation
for Site Cleanup
-------
Brownfields Technology Primer:
Selecting and Using Phytoremediation
for Site Cleanup
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
Washington, DC 20460
-------
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
Notice
This document has been funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under Contracts 68-W-99-003 and 68-W-99-020 to Tetra Tech EM Inc. The document was
subjected to the Agency's administrative and expert review and was approved for publication as
an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
Acknowledgments
The Technology Innovation Office would like to acknowledge and thank the individuals who
reviewed and provided comments on draft documents, and provided current information on the
application of phytoremediation at various sites across the country.
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Background 2
1.3 Approach 2
2.0 WHAT IS PHYTOREMEDIATION? 4
2.1 Types of Sites and Contaminants Treated by Phytoremediation 5
2.2 Plants Species Used for Phytoremediation 5
2.3 Phytoremediation Processes 7
3.0 APPLICATION OF PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR THE CLEANUP OF SOIL, SEDIMENT,
SURFACE WATER, AND GROUNDWATER 9
3.1 Advantages to the Selection of Phytoremediation at Brownfields Sites 9
3.2 Related Uses of Plants at Brownfields Sites 11
3.3 Discussions with Regulators 11
3.4 Community Involvement 11
4.0 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND LIMITATIONS 12
5.0 SELECTION AND DESIGN OF A PHYTOREMEDIATION SYSTEM 14
5.1 Technical Factors 14
5.2 Strategies for Contaminant Control 16
5.3 Innovative Technology Treatment Trains 16
5.4 Design Team 17
6.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 18
6.1 Operation and Maintenance 18
6.2 Disposal 18
6.3 Performance Evaluation and Monitoring 19
7.0 COST OF PHYTOREMEDIATION 20
7.1 Cost Savings Based on Actual Cost Estimates 20
7.2 Sample Phytoremediation Costs 20
8.0 SUPPORTING RESOURCES 22
Tables
1 Selected Phytoremediation Projects 6
2 Types of Plants, Contaminants, and Media 8
3 Estimated Cost Savings Through the Use of Phytoremediation Rather Than
Conventional Treatment 21
4 References by Topic 25
Appendices
1 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
2 THE PROCESSES OF PHYTOREMEDIATION
3 PHYTOREMEDIATION DECISION TREE MODELS
-------
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The Brownfields Technology Support Center
(BTSC) (see box) has developed this
document to provide an educational tool for
site owners, project managers, and regulators
to help evaluate the applicability of the
phytoremediation process at brownfields sites.
Cleanup technologies that reduce costs,
decrease time frames, or positively affect
other decision considerations (for example,
community acceptance) can have a significant
effect on the redevelopment potential of
brownfields sites. Increased attention to
brownfields sites and the manner in which
they are redeveloped places greater
importance on the selection of cleanup
technologies.
Phytoremediation represents a group of
innovative technologies that use plants and
natural processes to remediate or stabilize
hazardous wastes in soil, sediments,
surface water, or groundwater. Because it
is based on natural processes,
phytoremediation may be easily adaptable
to many redevelopment plans for
brownfields sites. Phytoremediation is
being evaluated at a variety of sites and on
myriad contaminants to determine the
conditions under which phytoremediation
systems are effective in reducing
contamination. The primer presents some
of the advantages and technical limitations
of phytoremediation that the evaluations
indicate. The primer illustrates the
potential of phytoremediation to serve as:
> An interim approach for stabilizing sites
while other cleanup strategies are being
evaluated
> An approach that augments the overall
effectiveness of other cleanup
technologies
> A stand-alone approach for providing
cost-effective, long-term cleanup
solutions
The primer also illustrates the potential
limitations of phytoremediation and how such
factors as levels of contaminants and
properties of the soil, as well as concerns
about potential risk of exposure may affect the
use of phytoremediation at brownfields sites.
Because phytoremediation is more than
simply planting vegetation, brownfields
decision makers must: (1) select the correct
plants, (2) work effectively with regulators and
the local community, (3) understand
maintenance and monitoring requirements,
and (4) compare the costs of
phytoremediation with the costs of other
technology options.
Until phytoremediation is a more proven and
established technology, advocates for its use
may find it necessary to demonstrate its
potential applicability and efficacy on a site-
specific basis. To do so may require an up-
Brownfields Technology Support Center
EPA recently established the
Brownfields Technology Support Center
to ensure that brownfields decision
makers are aware of the full range of
technologies available for conducting
site assessments and cleanup, and can
make informed decisions about their
sites. The center can help decision
makers evaluate strategies to
streamline the site assessment and
cleanup process, identify and review
information about complex technology
options, evaluate contractor capabilities
and recommendations, explain complex
technologies to communities, and plan
technology demonstrations. The center
is coordinated through EPA's TIO and
works through the laboratories of EPA's
Office of Research and Development.
Localities can submit requests for
assistance directly through their EPA
Regional Brownfields Coordinators;
online at ; or
by calling 1-877-838-7220 (toll free).
For more information about the
program, the point of contact is Dan
Powell of EPA TIO at 703-603-7196 or
.
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
front commitment of time and resources to
demonstrate that the performance of
phytoremediation is comparable to the
performance of traditionally accepted
technology options. Such an investment
ultimately could save site owners significant
amounts of money when they clean up their
properties for redevelopment.
1.2 Background
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has defined brownfields sites as
"abandoned, idled or under-used industrial
and commercial facilities where expansion or
redevelopment is complicated by real or
perceived environmental contamination."
Numerous technology options are available to
assist those involved in the cleanup of
brownfields sites. EPA's Technology
Innovation Office (TIO) encourages the use of
innovative, cost-effective technologies to
characterize and clean up contaminated sites.
An innovative technology is a technology that
has been field-tested and applied to a
hazardous waste problem at a site, but that
lacks a long history of full-scale use.
Although readily available information about
its cost and how well it works may be
insufficient to encourage use under a wide
variety of operating conditions, an innovative
technology has the potential to significantly
reduce the cost and time required to
redevelop brownfields sites.
Historically, fear of contamination and its
associated liability has hampered
redevelopment of brownfields sites.
Phytoremediation offers a unique advantage
over other remediation technologies. It
provides ecosystem restoration and "green
areas" that may be desired by the local
community.
The process of redeveloping brownfields sites
provides an excellent framework for using
innovative technologies because: (1) state
and federal regulators tend to be flexible in
approving cleanup plans for brownfields sites,
particularly those sites for which voluntary
cleanup plans have been submitted; (2) most
of the current brownfields sites are not
encumbered by a history of litigation or
enforcement actions for which traditional
technologies already may have been
specified; and (3) redevelopment plans have
been prepared for many brownfields sites and
are used to establish site-specific cleanup
targets and the time frames for cleanup - that
information provides an excellent basis for
tailoring innovative approaches to the
investigation and cleanup of individual sites.
1.3 Approach
This primer will assist brownfields decision
makers in considering phytoremediation as an
innovative treatment technology option for
cleanup at brownfields sites. The document
discusses the factors important in the
selection of phytoremediation, such as
regional climate and local growing conditions,
location and type of contaminants to be
treated, and site-specific redevelopment
objectives. The primer illustrates how those
factors can be potential advantages (or
limitations) in the selection of
phytoremediation at a brownfields site;
presents examples that illustrate the field
applications of phytoremediation at
brownfields sites; and identifies additional
resources to assist brownfields decision
makers in evaluating phytoremediation as an
option for their sites.
In addition, this document provides the
following information in appendices:
> A list of acronyms
> A glossary that explains technical
terms related to phytoremediation
> A description of the processes of
phytoremediation;
> Decision tree diagrams developed by the
Phytoremediation Work Group of the
Interstate Technology and Regulatory
Cooperation Work Group. The decision
tree diagrams provides guidelines for
determining the applicability of
phytoremediation at a brownfields site
after site characterization has been
completed.
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
This primer is not an authoritative or original
source of research on phytoremediation.
Instead, it is intended to briefly describe the
phytoremediation process and its potential
applicability in a brownfields setting in a tone
appropriate for audiences who have only a
limited technical background.
It is important to note that this primer cannot
be used as the sole basis for determining this
technology's applicability to a specific site.
That decision is based on many factors and
must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Technology expertise must be applied and
treatability studies conducted to support a
final remedy decision. For a more technical
and thorough treatment of the topic and of
issues described in this primer, consult EPA's
Introduction to Phytoremediation (EPA/600/R-
99/107, February 2000). Ordering information
is provided in the Supporting Resources
section of this primer.
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
2.0 WHAT IS PHYTOREMEDIATION?
Physical Effects -
Transpiration of volatiles
and hydraulic control of
dissolved plume
Enhanced
rhizosphere
biodegradation
Phytoremediation is the direct
use of living green plants for in
situ (in-place or on-site) risk
reduction for contaminated soil,
sludges, sediments, and
groundwater, through removal,
degradation, or containment of
the contaminant (synonyms:
green remediation and botano-
remediation). Figure 1
illustrates the mechanisms
involved in the
phytoremediation process.
Phytoremediation warrants
consideration for cleaning up
brownfields sites at which there
are relatively low
concentrations of contaminants
(that is, organics, nutrients, or
metals) over a large cleanup area and at
shallow depths. Another potential application
for phytoremediation is at sites that currently
are "mothballed" and may be redeveloped in
the future. Phytoremediation can be a cost-
effective alternative approach for reducing
the leaching of contaminatnts through soil or
groundwater, reducing the run-off of
contaminated stormwater, beginning an initial
level of cleanup, and improving the aesthetic
condition of a site. Phytoremediation
warrants consideration for use in conjunction
with other technologies when the
redevelopment and land use plans for the
site include the use of vegetation.
Phytoremediation is distinct from Monitored
Natural Attenuation (MNA), that is, a
controlled and monitored site cleanup
approach that relies on natural attenuation
processes to achieve remediation objectives
within time frames that are reasonable
vis-a-vis more active methods. Though both
processes involve some similar elements
such as biodegradation, sorption,
volatilization, stabilization, phytoremediation
technologies represent active processes that
are designed and implemented to control and
eliminate contamination. MNA and
Phytodegradation - The breakdown of contaminants taken up by
the plant through metabolic processes within the plant, or the
breakdown of contaminants external to the plant through the
effect of compounds (such as enzymes) produced by the plant
Accumulation in roots
translocated to shoots
and leaves
Figure 1: Examples of Mechanisms Involved in Phytoremediation
phytoremediation also are similar in that both
might be considered significant components
of a treatment-train approach to hazardous
waste cleanup at brownfield sites. For more
information on EPA's directives regarding the
the use of MNA refer to .
Successful Reduction of Lead Contamination
Phytoextraction was demonstrated at a site in
Trenton New Jersey that had been used for the
manufacture of lead acid batteries. Phytoextraction
using Indian mustard (Brassicajuncea)and
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) soil
amendment reduced the average surface lead
concentration by 13 percent in one growing season.
The target soil concentration of 400 milligrams per
kilogram (mg/kg) was achieved in approximately 72
percent of a 4,500 square-foot area. (Some of the
reduction may be attributed to dilution as a result of
tilling and spreading contaminants deeper into the
soil column.) For more information, contact Larry
D'Andrea of EPA at (202) 673-4314 or
D'Andrea. Larry @epa.gov.
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
2.1 Types of Sites and Contaminants
Treated by Phytoremediation
There is potential to use phytoremediation
beneficially under a wide variety of site
conditions. Types of sites at which
phytoremediation has been applied or
evaluated include: pipelines; industrial and
municipal landfills; agricultural fields; wood
treating sites; military bases; fuel storage
tank farms; gas stations; army ammunition
plants; sewage treatment plants; and mining
sites.
Phytoremediation is being tested and
evaluated for its effectiveness in containing
and treating a wide array of contaminants
found at brownfields sites. While much more
testing is needed, current results indicate that
plants have the potential to enhance
remediation of the following types of
contaminants:
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and
xylene (BTEX)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)
Trichloroethene (TCE) and other
chlorinated solvents
Ammunition wastes and explosives
Heavy metals
Pesticide waste
Radionuclides
Nutrient wastes (such as phosphates and
nitrates)
One of the more optimal applications of
phytoremediation is as a containment
technology. Since many brownfields sites
are characterized by wide-spread
contamination at low concentrations that are
close to target cleanup levels,
phytoremediation is a good containment
alternative if geology and rainfall amounts are
favorable.
Table 1 lists types of sites at which
phytoremediation has been employed with
some level of success in cleaning up the
sites. The table provides only a
representative sample of sites and
contaminants.
2.2 Plants Species Used for
Phytoremediation
Plants species are selected for use according
to their ability to treat the contaminants of
concern and achieve the remedial objectives
for redevelopment (for example, time frame
and risk management), and for their
adaptability to other site-specific factors such
as adaptation to local climates, depth of the
plant's root structure, and the ability of the
species to flourish in the type of soil present.
Often the preferred vegetation characteristics
include: an ability to extract or degrade the
contaminants of concern to nontoxic or less
toxic products, fast growth rate, adaptability
to local conditions, ease of planting and
maintenance, and the uptake of large
quantitities of water by evapotranspiration
(see the glossary of terms in Appendix 1 for
definitions of technical terms). The selection
and use of plant species must be conducted
with care to prevent the introduction of non-
native species into areas where those
species are not already present. Plant
species that are benign under most
circumstances may become a problem when
introduced into a new area. For example,
water hyacinth is considered a noxious
aquatic weed that should be used only in
isolated bodies of water from which there are
no risks of unintentional transport (for
example, by flood).
Maintenance requirements should be
considered when selecting plant species for
use at brownfields sites; those requirements
may include the frequency with which the
plant must be mowed; the need for fertilizer;
and the need for replanting, pruning,
harvesting, and monitoring programs.
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
Table 1
Selected Phytoremediation Projects
Contaminant(s)/
Purpose of Project
Chlorinated solvents/
Control groundwater
migration at an urban
brownfields site and
remove TCE and
derivatives from
groundwater
Chlorinated solvents/
Biologically (pump
and treat)
contaminated
groundwater
Chlorinated solvents/
Control groundwater
migration and remove
solvents from
groundwater
Heavy metals/
Reduce lead
concentration in soil
BTEX compounds/
Treat petroleum and
organic contaminants;
prevent contaminated
groundwater from
migrating
PAH's/Control
groundwater and
surface water
migration, stabilize
soil, and degrade
contaminants
Explosives and
fertilizers/
Contain and treat
toxic solvents
Wood preservatives/
Treat PAHs and
DNAPLs
Media/
Mechanism
Groundwater/
Phytoextraction,
phytovolatilization,
rhizodegradation
Soil/
Rhizodegradation,
phytovolatilization
Groundwater/
Phytovolatilization,
rhizosphere
biodegradation,
phytodegradation
Phytoextraction
Soil and
groundwater/
Hydraulic control,
Phytoextraction,
phytovolatilization,
rhizodegradation
Soil and
groundwater/
Hydraulic control,
rhizodegradation
Soil and
groundwater/
Phytodegradation,
phytovolatilization
Soil and
groundwater/
Rhizodegradation,
hydraulic control
Plant
Species
Hybrid poplar
and willow
Hybrid poplar,
white willow,
native species
Eastern
cottonwood
Indian
mustard
Hybrid poplar
Grasses,
hybrid poplar
Hybrid poplar
Herbaceous
species and
hybrid poplar
Location
(Scale*)
Findlay, OH
(Full scale)
Solvents
Recovery
Systems of New
England,
Southington, CT
(Full scale)
Carswell AFB, TX
(Pilot)
Trenton, NJ
Brownfields Site
(Pilot)
Ashland
Chemical Co,
Milwaukee, Wl
(Full scale)
Oneida, TN (Full
scale)
Aberdeen
Proving Ground,
MD (Pilot)
Laramie, WY
(Full scale)
Point of
Contact
Steve Synder, Ohio
Environmental Protection
Agency (OEPA)
(419)352-8461
Ed Gatliff, Applied Natural
Sciences, Inc. (ANS)
(513)942-6061
Steve Rock, U.S. EPA
(513)569-7149
Ari Ferro, Phytokinetics
(801)750-0950
Steve Hitt, U.S. EPA
(214)665-6736
Greg Harvey, USAF
(937)255-7716
Larry D'Andrea, U.S. EPA
(212)637-4314
Dr. Michael Blaylock,
Edenspace (703)961-8700
Scott Ferguson, Wisconsin
Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR)
(414)263-8685
Dr. Louis Licht, Ecolotree
(319)358-9753
Dr. John Novak, VATech
(540)231-6132
Dr. Louis Licht, Ecolotree
(319)358-9753
Harry Compton, U.S. EPA
(732)321-6751
Steve Hirsh, U.S. EPA
(215)814-3352
Marisa Latady, Wyoming
Department of Environmental
Quality, (307) 777-7752
Jennifer Uhland, CH2M Hill
(303^ 771-0900
Source: Various research documents, internet web sites, and discussions with points of contact.
Notes:
* Full scale = Phytoremediation is part of the final remedy for site cleanup
Pilot scale = Phytoremediation is being evaluated as a potential treatment technology for the site.
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
Several types of plants and sample species
frequently used for phytoremediation are
listed below:
Hybrid poplars, willow, and cottonwood
trees
Grasses (rye, Bermuda grass, sorghum,
and fescue)
Legumes (clover, alfalfa, and cowpeas)
Aquatic and wetland plants (water
hyacinth, reed, bullrush, and parrot
feather)
Hyperaccumulators for metals (such as
alpine pennycress for zinc or alyssum for
nickel)
Herbaceous species, such as mustard,
alfalfa, and grasses, can be used in the
remediation of contaminants in surface soil.
Hybrid poplars, willows, cottonwood, and
other woody species that have rapid growth
rates, deep roots, and high transpiration rates
(resulting in uptake of abundant quantities of
water), can be in the remediation of
contaminants in groundwater or can be used
to provide hydraulic control.
Phytoremediation Selected for
RCRA Corrective Action
An Ashland Chemical Company tank farm in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin shows the potential for the
use of phytoremediation at active industrial sites, as
well as the adaptability of the technology for
brownfields sites. Under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), the facility was required
to remediate contamination with petroleum products
and organic solvents that resulted from years of fuel
and solvent handling at the facility. Hybrid poplar
trees have been arrayed to prevent contaminated
groundwater from discharging into an adjacent river
while remediating concentrations of contaminants in
soil and groundwater. An extensive monitoring
program, consisting of several monitoring wells
transects and frequent groundwater and soil
sampling, assesses the project's impact on
groundwater migration, concentrations of
contaminants, and growth conditions for the trees.
Despite that rigorous program, the project was
considerably less expensive than excavating and
landfilling contaminated soil and pumping and
treating contaminated groundwater. For more
information, contact Scott Ferguson of the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources at
(414)263-8685.
Constructed wetlands also are being used to
remediate contaminated sites. There are two
broad categories of wetland plants -
emergent and submerged species.
Emergent plants, those rooted in shallow
water with most of the plant exposed above
the water's surface, transpire water and can
be easier to harvest, if necessary.
Submerged species, which lie entirely
beneath the water's surface, do not transpire
water but provide more biomass (increased
vegetative growth and density) for the uptake
and sorption of contaminants. (See the
glossary). Plant species that have a
relatively high biomass generally improve the
overall effectiveness of phytoremediation.
(See the Selection and Design of a
Phytoremediation System section of this
primer for a more detailed discussion of the
role biomass plays in phytoremediation).
2.3 Phytoremediation Processes
Phytoremediation is the broad term for the
use of plant systems to remediate
contamination. Phytoremediation can be
classified further on the basis of the physical
and biological processes involved. Those
processes include:
Hydraulic control: The use of plants to
rapidly uptake large volumes of water to
contain or control the migration of subsurface
water (synonym: phytohydraulics).
Phytodegradation: The breakdown of
contaminants taken up by the plant through
metabolic processes within the plant, or the
breakdown of contaminants external to the
plant through the effect of compounds (such
as enzymes) produced by the plant
(synonym: phytotransformation).
Phytoextraction: The uptake of a
contaminant by plant roots and the
translocation of that contaminant into the
aboveground portion of the plants; the
contaminant generally is removed by
harvesting the plants. This technology is
applied most often to soil or water
contaminated with metals.
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
Phytostabilization: The immobilization of a
contaminant through absorption and
accumulation by roots, adsorption onto roots,
or precipitation within the root zone of plants.
Phytovolatilization: The uptake and
transpiration of a contaminant by a plant, with
release of the contaminant or a modified form
of the contaminant to the atmosphere from
the plant.
Rhizodegradation: The breakdown of a
contaminant in soil through microbial activity
that is enhanced by the presence of the root
zone (synonyms: plant-assisted degradation,
plant-assisted bioremediation, plant-aided in
situ biodegradation, and enhanced
rhizosphere biodegradation).
Rhizofiltration: The adsorption or
precipitation onto plant roots or the
absorption into the roots of contaminants that
are in solution in the root zone.
Appendix 2 to this document provides a brief
explanation of the mechanisms of
phytoremediation. For more technical
information about the various processes of
phytoremediation, refer to EPA's Introduction
to Phytoremediation (EPA/600/R-99/107,
February 2000). Table 2 shows the types of
contaminants and media that can be treated
by commonly used plants. The table also
includes the type(s) of phytoremediation
process that occur in each situation
identified.
Table 2
Types of Plants, Contaminants, and Media
Type of
Contaminant
Organic
Inorganic
Medium
Soil
Sediment
Groundwater
Soil
Sediment
Groundwater
Type of Plant
1
A
PV
A
PV
Alyssum
A
PE
A
PE
W
Bald cypn
A
PD
RD
A
PD
RD
A
PD
M
m
A
PV
A
PV
Cottonwo
A
HC
A
HC
Grasses
A
RD
A
RD
A
PS
A
PS
I
a<
Hybrid po
A
PD
RD
A
PD
RD
A
HC
PD
A
PE
PS
PV
A
PE
PS
PV
A
HC
1
W
Indian mu
A
PE
PS
PV
A
PE
PS
PV
A
RF
«
o
A
PE
A
PE
fl
Red Mulb
A
RD
A
RD
Stonewort
A
PD
A
PD
A
PD
Sunflower
A
PE
A
PE
A
RF
"S
0
Water hya
A
RF
Willow
A
PD
RD
A
PD
RD
A
HC
PD
A
HC
A Plant is effective for the type of
contamination and medium shown.
HC Hydraulic control
PD Phytodegradation
PE Phytoextraction
PS Phytostabilization
PV Phytovolatilization
RD Rhizodegradation
RF Rhizofiltration
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
3.0 APPLICATION OF PHYTOREMEDIATION
FOR THE CLEANUP OF SOIL, SEDIMENT,
SURFACE WATER, AND GROUNDWATER
Other
TTreatment .
schnologies \
Phytoremediation has been attempted on a
full- or demonstration-scale basis at more
than 200 sites nationwide. Although
phytoremediation is a naturally-occurring
process, discovery of its effectiveness and
advances in its application as an innovative
treatment technology at waste sites, including
brownfields sites, have been recent. The
technology first was tested actively at waste
sites in the early 1990s, and use of the
approach has been increasing. As the
number of successful demonstration projects
grows and new information about the
application of phytoremediation becomes
available, the use of phytoremediation as a
treatment technology is increasing because
the technology has been proven an efficient
and effective approach at brownfields sites.
3.1 Advantages to the Selection of
Phytoremediation at Brownfields
Sites
When deciding on the applicability of
phytoremediation at a brownfields site,
decision makers should compare the
potential effectiveness and efficiency of
phytoremediation technology with other
treatment technologies that might be
appropriate for the site. The comparison
should address any specific needs of and
conditions at the site. Several
characteristics that are common to
brownfields sites should be considered during
the decision-making process. Those
characteristics include the need to enhance
the redevelopment potential and economic
value of the affected properties; the desire to
avoid indirect impacts on the community
(such as hauling large quantities of excavated
soil through neighborhoods); sensitive public
relations issues; and the fact that, sometimes,
the problem at a brownfields site is a
"perceived" one, rather than actual
contamination. Some advantages
phytoremediation offers in a brownfields
redevelopment setting are listed below.
> Potentially treats a wide variety of
contaminants. Relevance: Brownfields
sites often are made up of a collection of
former manufacturing facilities or
manufacturing processes that have left
behind a legacy of contaminants.
Research has shown that plant species
used in remediation can potentially treat a
wide variety of contaminants or families of
contaminants (for example, treating both
organics and metals).
> Provides in situ treatment. Relevance:
Stakeholders' concern about potential
health risk at brownfields sites can play a
significant role in the selection of a
treatment remedy. If a site is located in a
populated area, as is often the case, or
near sensitive receptors, such as school
children or residents, phytoremediation
offers a solution through which soil remains
in place during treatment and is usable
after treatment. Phytoremediation does not
require excavation of soil, and its
application may require only minimum
materials handling. Further,
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
phytoremediation can have a positive
effect on the aesthetic character of a site.
> Offers a permanent solution.
Relevance: In some cases,
phytoremediation can destroy most or all
the pollutants, leaving little or no residual
contamination. Permanent mitigation of
potential risks can broaden the appeal of a
site to a potential developer. In addition,
future redevelopment may be encouraged
if the developer is not required to place
such institutional controls as deed
restrictions because there are no residual
contaminants of concern.
> Serves as an interim solution.
Relevance: In addition to offering a
permanent solution, in some cases
phytoremediation can act as a stop-gap
measure to contain the spread of
contaminants and begin the treatment
process. Although phytoremediation may
not be the selected final technology, the
benefits of a well designed and capably
managed phytoremediation system may be
preferable to the risks that might be posed
should a brownfields site be left completely
untreated during preparation of the final
redevelopment plan and selection of a final
remedy.
> Installation and operating and
maintenance costs can be low.
Relevance: Phytoremediation systems are
installed and maintained by traditional
agricultural or landscaping equipment,
materials, and practices. Those
techniques typically are less expensive in
up-front and long-term costs than
technology-intensive alternatives that may
require the use of sophisticated
equipment.
> Can be integrated into the natural
environment and landscaping plans.
Relevance: Phytoremediation can be
designed to be unobtrusive and
aesthetically pleasing in a variety of site
layout conditions. Wetlands, forests, or
grasslands are examples of natural areas
Using Poplars to "Pump and Treat" Groundwater
A system consisting of a dense stand of hybrid poplar,
white willow, and six native tree species was installed at
the Solvents Recovery Systems of New England
(SRSNE) Superfund Site in Southington, Connecticut.
The overall objective of the project was to biologically
"pump and treat" contaminated groundwater, reducing
the amount and toxicity of contaminated groundwater
that reaches the traditional mechanical extraction wells
and ultraviolet-oxidation system. Initial greenhouse
studies found that the concentration of total volatile
organic compounds (VOC) at the site did not limit the
growth of the trees. Sap flow measurements reported
as field results indicate that the stand of trees is
accomplishing both its goals, pumping contaminated
groundwater and removing some pollutants in the
process. For more information, contact Steve Rock of
EPA at (513) 569-7149 or rock.steven@epa.gov.
that can be used in phytoremediation
design to enhance or restore the physical
appearance of a brownfields site. Other
treatment technologies that may employ
heavy construction equipment, large
pumps or wells, or other equipment (for
example, an incinerator) may have less
visual appeal and may be objectionable to
certain stakeholder groups.
> Can be an effective element of a unified
treatment-train remediation approach.
Relevance: From a cost savings and
treatment effectiveness point of view, it is
often advisable to combine, spatially and/or
over time, different treatment technologies
into a unified cleanup strategy. Treatment
trains are implemented in cases where no
single technology is capable of treating all
of the contaminants in a particular medium
or where one technology might be used to
render a medium more easily treatable by a
subsequent technology. Phytoremediation
is a technology that can provide benefit
when used in concert with more intensive
and therefore more expensive
technologies. It thus reduces overall
project costs, while achieving cleanup
goals.
10
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
3.2 Related Uses of Plants at
Brownfields Sites
Aside from landscaping applications, plants
with potential use for phytoremediation also
have other potential applications for
protecting the environment at brownfields
sites. Installing vegetated areas, called
riparian buffers, next to surface water
resources can provide protection from non-
point source pollution, while at the same time
stabilize the banks of the water bodies and
provide a habitat area for wildlife. Vegetation
is often a crucial component in the abatement
of soil erosion in riparian zones, as well as
any area in which soil erosion could occur if
the soil is not protected. Hybrid poplars and
other trees are being tested as an alternative
to grassy clay caps, which often are used at
landfills to direct rainwater away and help
minimize the volume of leachate from those
landfills. The mechanism is a similar to that
involved in using plants to control site
hydrology. Species of trees, such as hybrid
poplars, quickly take up large quantities of
water and can be used to reduce plumes of
groundwater.
3.3 Discussions with Regulators
Many regulators have been receptive to the
use of phytoremediation at brownfields sites
because of the increasing number of positive
results demonstrated. However, as in the
selection of any innovative treatment
technology, it is important to consider site-
specific conditions and develop a level of
certainty that phytoremediation is applicable
for the site. Stakeholders that wish to use
phytoremediation should be prepared to
demonstrate that the performance of the
system would compare favorably with that of
other traditional and innovative technology
options and that phytoremediation is the
preferred option for the site. In addition,
regulatory requirements may vary by state or
region; federal, state, and local regulatory
agencies should be consulted to determine
those requirements. Consulting with the
regulatory agencies will provide access to
members of those agencies' staff who may
have expertise in and experience with
phytoremediation at similar sites.
Demonstrating the technical results and
success stories of implementation of
phytoremediation at similar sites can help tip
the scales toward regulatory acceptance. Up-
front efforts to evaluate the advantages of
using phytoremediation will pay off in
increased overall support of the process of
remedy selection and expedited approval of
the redevelopment plans by regulatory
agencies.
3.4 Community Involvement
Acceptance of a redevelopment plan that
involves the use of any cleanup technology
can be a sensitive community issue. It is
important to promote acceptance of the
redevelopment plan and the cleanup
alternatives by involving the community early
in the decision-making process through
community meetings, newsletters, or other
outreach activities. An advantage of
phytoremediation is that it is an easily
understood approach. Phytoremediation is
more intuitive than many other treatment
technologies and therefore may gain greater
acceptance in the community. For an
individual site, the community should be
aware of how use of the technology may
affect redevelopment plans and the adjacent
neighborhood. For example, there may be
aesthetic or visual improvements that result
from the planting of trees or the creation of a
wetland; there may be site-security issues or
long-term maintenance issues which may
affect site access; or there may be risk
factors that must be conveyed to the
community and may require the preparation
of a risk-management plan.
11
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
4.0 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
As is true of any cleanup alternative,
phytoremediation offers a number of
advantages, as described in the preceding
section. However, it also has technical
limitations related to the types and levels of
contaminants present, soil properties,
acceptable exposure risks, and other site-
specific considerations. Discussed in this
section are a number of factors that decision
makers may find necessary to consider when
evaluating phytoremediation as a cleanup
option for their site. A more comprehensive
discussion of potential limitations to the
implementation of phytoremediation can be
found in the documents listed in the
Supporting Resources section of
this primer.
The total length of time required to
clean up a site through
phytoremediation may be too long
to be acceptable for some
redevelopment objectives.
Phytoremediation is limited by the
natural growth rate of plants and
the length of the growing season.
Several growing seasons may be
required before phytoremediation
systems become effective, while
traditional methods may require a
few weeks to a few months.
Therefore, low removal rates may
prohibit the use of
phytoremediation in cases in which
the time period available for cleanup is limited
and is a key criterion in selecting a
technology.
The growth rate of a plant species will have a
direct effect on the potential for use at a
particular site. For example, fast-growing
grasses will begin treating soil contamination
more quickly than a tree, which must
establish deeper roots to treat target
contaminants. As plants, particularly trees
used in phytoremediation, mature their root
structures deepen and their capacity to treat
deeper levels of contamination improves.
Phytoremediation can provide a number of
benefits during the course of vegetation
maturation. Plantings during initial stages
can provide a cover that minimizes water
infiltration. As the tree roots mature,
phytodegradation, rhizodegradation, and/or
phytovolatilization processes can take place
to treat contaminants at increasing depths
below the surface. In fully mature stages,
phytoremediation cover can develop a
hydraulic control, hydrostatic barrier function.
Figure 2 illustrates the progressive
development stages for phytoremediation to
YearO
Trees planted
Year!
Tree roots penetrate
waste - Remediation
Tree continues to mature -
Soil created -
Water balance established
Figure 2. Phytoremediation Developmental Stages
Source: EPA. 2000. Introduction to Phytoremediation (E.PAIQOOIR-99IW7).
National Risk Management Research Laboratory. February.
12
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
support capping to reduce infiltration,
degradation, and then hydraulic control.
While this developmental process can be
beneficial, consideration also must be given
to whether phytoremediation is a safe and
protective remedy during the time it takes for
the plants to establish themselves to a point
at which they are treating the contaminants
effectively.
It must be determined whether
phytoremediation can be effective for the
site-specific conditions and contaminants.
For example, phytoremediation works better
in shallow soils and groundwater, unless
deep-rooted plants are suitable for the site.
In addition, phytoremediation works best on
certain types of contaminants or mixed waste
and may be less effective when used on
other combinations of waste. For example,
phytoremediation may not be the most
effective treatment option if levels of
contamination are so high that concentrations
of contaminants are toxic to plants
(phytotoxic).
In some cases, phytoremediation might not
provide adequate protection, from an eco-
receptor perspective. For example,
contamination that is below ground can be
transferred into the leaves and stems of
plants that are a food source. Further, in
some cases, contaminants are not destroyed
in the phytoremediation process; instead,
they are transferred from the soil onto the
plants and then are transpired in to the air.
Phytoremediation could also increase the
rates of bioaccummulation of contaminants
than might otherwise occur.
Potential costs associated with monitoring
and maintaining the phytoremediation
process at the site also must be factored into
the selection process. Maintenance costs
often are lower with phytoremediation than
with conventional treatment technologies.
On the other hand, monitoring costs could be
higher, especially if the cleanup rates are
slower and monitoring of the site continues
longer than monitoring for conventional
treatment technologies. An activity that will
increase the cost of long-term maintenance is
the harvesting and proper disposal of plant
materials that contain contaminants.
The state of phytoremediation technology is
emerging, and more information from
treatability studies and long-term applications
are needed to support its consideration as a
viable technology. Until that information is
available, the diversity of opinions about the
conditions and contaminants for which
phytoremediation may be a well-suited
cleanup technology will continue.
Consulting with technical experts to
determine the applicability of
phytoremediation on a site-by-site basis is
advised. Further, in many cases, it will be
important to identify a contingency plan for
cleaning up the site in the event that
phytoremediation will not meet cleanup
objectives in an effective and timely manner.
13
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
5.0 SELECTION AND DESIGN OF A PHYTOREMEDIATION SYSTEM
The design of a phytoremediation system
varies according to the contaminants, the
conditions at the site, the level of cleanup
required, and the plants used. As previously
noted, contaminants and site conditions are
perhaps the most important factors in the
design and success of a phytoremediation
system. Other factors that influence the
selection and design of a phytoremediation
system are discussed below.
5.1 Technical Factors
Because phytoremediation is an agronomic
process, it is highly dependent on climate
and site-specific characteristics. Soil
properties determine the ability of a plant
species not only to become established in the
soil, but also to maximize biomass and,
therefore, removal of contaminants. Soil
parameters typically analyzed to determine
whether phytoremediation is applicable
include texture; pH; moisture content; organic
matter content; lime content; cation exchange
capacity; and content of nutrients, such as
calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphate,
and sulfate.
As with most treatment technologies,
innovative or not, a treatability study should
be conducted before a final remediation
technology can be selected for use at a site
to demonstrate that the technology will work
at that specific site. Information to assess
the effectiveness of phytoremediation also
may be available in existing literature. For
example, research may reveal phytotoxicity
levels or regional agronomic practices for the
simple application of phytoremediation, given
adequate site characterization and
monitoring.
Where treatability studies are necessary, site
characterization and bench-scale tests may
be used to determine system performance in
the field and evaluate whether the design will
meet the desired level of cleanup in the
specified time period. For phytoremediation,
it may be necessary to conduct treatability
studies under laboratory conditions (for
example, in an artificial hydroponic system) to
simulate site conditions and obtain an initial
result that proves the effectiveness of the
design. Acceleration of the process can be
expedited by typical approaches, including
artificial light, water, and temperature
conditions. The advantage of such
laboratory studies is that the process can be
accelerated to provide early results and
reduce implementation time.
Local climatic conditions, particularly the
length of the growing season, govern the
type and number of crops that can be planted
each year and therefore the annual rate of
removal of contaminants. Climatic
conditions, such as rainfall and temperatures,
also influence irrigation strategies and the
selection of plant species. Plant species that
grow well in the Pacific Northwest may not
survive in the arid Southwest.
Hydrologic models allow the calculation of the
flow of water and how that flow might be
affected by the application of
phytoremediation. Irrigation flows can have
an impact on groundwater conditions and
ultimately on the movement of the
contaminants to be treated. Although
irrigation of plants may be necessary to
ensure a robust start for a phytoremediation
system, even in drought conditions, careful
modeling may be necessary to predict with
any certainty the effects of phytoremediation
at a site.
Agronomic techniques include the addition of
nutrients necessary for vigorous growth in
vegetation. To maximize the efficiency of the
phytoremediation treatment system, the soil
type first must be determined. Analysis will
help determine the need for amendments,
such as nitrogen, potassium, phosphorous,
14
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
manure, sewage sludge compost, straw,
or mulch, which are added as required to
improve the performance of the plant.
For example, maintenance of the
phytoremediation system may require
the addition of chemicals to stabilize
metals in the soil or the addition of
chelates to ensure that plants take up
the contaminants. A close working
relationship with regulators is especially
important in such a situation to quickly
determine any rules, regulations, or
prohibitions related to the addition of
amendments to the subsurface. Any
changes made in the soil through the
application of soil amendments,
however, should be evaluated and
monitored for their effects on the site
conditions.
Biomass is the amount of living or
organic matter produced by plants.
Increased biomass results in higher
levels of treatment and containment
because more materials available to the
plant (including contaminants) are used
to support growth. Phytoremediation
designs commonly involve higher
Alfalfa
Grasses
Indian
Mustard
Remediating Wood Preservatives and Residual DNAPLs
Phytoremediation is being tested as an approach to
addressing both wood preservatives and dense non-
aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) at a RCRA site in Laramie,
Wyoming. The active Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) facility
became contaminated with polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) during almost 100 years of treating
railroad ties with creosote. UPRR installed a bentonite-filled
trench to contain contaminated groundwater but had no
means of addressing residual PAHs in soil and groundwater
because of the perceived technical infeasibility of cleaning
up to the relatively low maximum contaminant levels (MCL).
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
(WDEQ) approved a phytoremediation demonstration that
will serve as a research project for the WDEQ as well as the
facility and therefore includes rigorous requirements for
monitoring. More than 10,000 plants are being installed at a
50-acre site, including test plots in highly contaminated "hot
spots" at which the technique's ability to address high levels
of contamination will be assessed. Particular attention has
been paid to selecting native species that will be tolerant of
Laramie's harsh climate, and seed and plant stock for the
plantings have been harvested from the Laramie area. The
public has been included in planning for the project, as well,
and the phytoremediation plot has been integrated into
Laramie's greenspace plan and bicycle trail system. A bike
trail to the site was completed in early 2001, and a 1.5-mile
bike loop through the phytoremediation plot is being
planned. For more information, contact Marisa Latady of
WDEQ at (377) 777-7752.
planting densities than standard
agronomic rates for various species
to overcome decreased
germination because of
contaminated soils and to maximize
overall production of biomass for
the area. Consulting with an
experienced agronomist is essential
to designing a healthy and
productive phytoremediation
system.
Poplar Trees 15 ft.
2ft.
4-6 ft.
15ft.
Figure 3: Root Depth
Source: EPA. 2000. Introduction to Phytoremediation (EPAIGOQIR-99nQ7).
National Risk Management Research Laboratory. February.
Because various plant species
have different root structures,
careful consideration must be given
to selecting the most appropriate
species to address contaminants at
individual sites. Figure 3 illustrates
typical root depths of four plants
commonly used in
phytoremediation and
15
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
demonstrates the depth to which each of the
species may be most effective. The figure
illustrates the potential limitation of
phytoremediation to shallow soils.
5.2 Strategies for Contaminant Control
Phytoremediation can support a variety of
cleanup strategies. One such strategy is to
plant the contaminated area with a specific
species known to extract the targeted
contaminant, subsequently harvest the
resulting biomass, and then reduce the
harvested material by composting or burning.
The resulting pile then becomes a
concentration of the extracted chemical that
can be treated as hazardous waste or, if the
contaminant is a metal, recycled. Another
strategy, which focuses on containment, is to
surround an underground plume of
contaminants with a selected species of
plants to prevent further movement of the
plume through the establishment of a
hydrostatic barrier of tree roots, that is, the
groundwater is taken up by the tree roots and
therefore does not migrate beyond the roots.
Hybrid poplars have achieved successes in
such approaches.
A common interim approach for brownfields
sites has been capping or paving over a site
to minimize infiltration of water. Several
experiments have been conducted to create
"phytocaps" as improvements of asphalt
coverings. A phytocap is a combination of
trees and other vegetation capable of
absorbing and transpiring most of the
infiltration water, thereby reducing the risk
that contaminants will spread. A phytocap
must be planted densely so that the rate at
which the evaporative processes of the plants
take place matches the rate of infiltration of
water. The approach thereby eliminates the
need to construct an impermeable surface.
Treatment or capture of contaminated
groundwater under a site may require a
certain minimum surface area and
configuration of trees, depending on
groundwater flow rates and considerations
related to the contaminant. Surface water
buffers and corridors, groundwater
interceptor strips, and vegetative covers are
examples of applications of phytoremediation
that can be integrated into redevelopment
landscaping plans on both large and small
sites.
5.3 Innovative Technology Treatment
Trains
Phytoremediation can be an effective
component of treatment train approaches
that combine innovative technologies with
traditional remediation technologies. The
purpose of combining technologies can be to
reduce the volume of material that requires
further treatment, to prevent emission of
volatile contaminants during excavation and
mixing, or to treat several contaminants in a
single medium.
An example might be to use
phytoremediation as part of a treatment train
involving soil vapor extraction and/or air
sparging. If the volatized compounds are
passed through a properly designed plant
rhizoshere zone before being extracted or
discharged to the atmosphere, there can be
enhanced degradation of hazardous
compounds.
Hybrid poplars or other deep-rooted species
with high groundwater uptake rates could
serve in a treatment wall capacity when
installed in a way that intercepts migrating
contaminated groundwater plumes. The
groundwater that flows through the plant
treatment wall would in many cases become
adequately treated such that MNA could be
implemented as the final stage of the train.
In shallow aquifer situations phytoremediation
could replace more costly and intensive
technologies such as pumping and treating.
Anaerobic, reducing conditions are required
for effective degradation of chlorinated
solvents and other organic compounds. A
16
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
process whereby chemicals secreted from
tree roots lead to anaerobic degradation of
chlorinated solvents currently is receiving
research attention. This research has
examined the process in naturally occurring
trees, therefore in the context of MNA. For
additional information see the International
Journal of Phytoremediation, Vol. 2 (3), 2000.
5.4 Design Team
It is important that the development and
evaluation of a particular phytoremediation
design and long-term performance strategy
at a brownfields site be performed by an
experienced multidisciplinary team. The
design team can help the decision makers
weigh the advantages and limitations of
phytoremediation and select and design a
system that best addresses the factors
discussed in this section. The team might
include experts in the following disciplines or
fields:
Design Team Disciplines
Soil Science or Agronomy
Hydrology
Plant Biology
Environmental Engineering
Regulatory Analysis
Cost Engineering and Evaluation
Risk Assessment and Toxicology
Landscape Architecture
17
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
6.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
A phytoremediation
treatment system must
be monitored and
evaluated periodically to
measure the
effectiveness of
operations and progress
toward attainment of the
remedial objectives for
brownfields
redevelopment.
Monitoring can help
determine the most
effective course for
continued operation and maintenance. This
section describes responsibilities for
operation and maintenance at a
phytoremediation site.
6.1 Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance is required to obtain a healthy
stand (or growth of plants). Weed control
and irrigation probably are the two most
important practices. Because of the
proliferation of specific weeds, predators, and
diseases that can cause significant
reductions in yields, it may be necessary to
rotate crops to maintain increased biomass
production. Weeds also can be controlled by
employing mechanical (cultivation) or
chemical (herbicides) methods. Irrigation
water should compensate for normal losses
to evaporation and transpiration. The
method of irrigation also must be considered
carefully. Drip irrigation tends to minimize
evaporation of water, improve efficiency, and
reduce costs. The long-term maintenance
needs of wetland systems typically are
minimal and may consist of monitoring the
distribution and level of water, removing
vegetation and contaminants, and other
predominantly land-management activities,
such as control of access and maintenance
of berms.
6.2 Disposal
In phytoextraction
systems, plant material
must be harvested and
disposed of. Plants that
accumulate
contaminants may pose
a risk of spreading
contamination into the
food chain if they are
consumed by insects or
other animals.
Consideration should be
given to addressing the need to avoid
consumption of contaminated plants by
wildlife or livestock before plants are
harvested. At brownfields sites, the end uses
under a redevelopment plan can be a
determining factor in the potential risk to
human and environmental receptors that
accumulated contaminants may pose. The
brownfields site redevelopment plan
therefore can affect the need for disposal.
It is important to monitor the system and test
whether the plants contain any hazardous
substances. If there are no hazardous
substances present, the material could be
composted or worked into the soil on site. If
that is not possible, off-site disposal will be
required. The harvest of contaminated
biomass and possible disposal of the material
as hazardous waste would be subject to
applicable regulations, such as those
established under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
One option is disposal of contaminated
material in a regulated landfill. Disposal
under RCRA can add costs to a
phytoremediation project. However, the
removal and disposal of plant material used
in phytoremediation generally involves the
transporting and handling of materials that
are of far less volume and that probably are
less hazardous than materials generated by
operations that involve soil excavation or
18
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
other innovative or traditional remediation
technologies. Therefore, phytoremediation
can be a strategy for decreasing the costs of
handling, processing, and possibly landfilling
the materials.
6.3 Performance Evaluation and
Monitoring
To evaluate the short-term performance and
effectiveness of phytoremediation, the
concentrations of contaminants and
degradation products should be measured.
Monitoring should be conducted for soil,
groundwater, plant root and mass, and
evapotranspiration vapor. Rigorous
performance evaluation will help demonstrate
the system's ability to meet cleanup goals
and objectives. Because phytoremediation is
an emerging technology, standard
performance criteria for phytoremediation
systems have not yet been established, and
performance must be determined on a site-
by-site basis.
Long-term monitoring typically is necessary
for phytoremediation systems that require
long time horizons to demonstrate their
continued effectiveness. Monitoring may be
continued after short-term cleanup goals
have been met to determine the impact of the
phytoremediation system on the ecosystem.
A monitoring plan should be developed to
guide both short- and long-term monitoring.
The plan should discuss the following
elements: constituents or other parameters
to be monitored; the frequency and duration
of monitoring; monitoring and sampling
methods; analytical methods; monitoring
locations; and quality assurance and quality
control (QA/QC) requirements.
19
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
7.0 COST OF PHYTOREMEDIATION
Phytoremediation is an emerging technology;
standard cost information still is being
developed on the basis of experiences in
implementing phytoremediation projects.
This section provides information that
compares costs associated with the use of
phytoremediation to costs associated with the
use of conventional treatment technologies
based on actual cost estimates for three
sites, as well as other sample costs based on
laboratory and pilot scale work and field
information.
Many of those costs associated with
phytoremediation are not unique to
phytoremediation, but are common to
remediation technologies. The major cost
components for the implementation of
phytoremediation include the costs of:
> Site characterization
> Treatability studies
> Full-scale design (costs will vary according
to the contaminants, the site
characteristics, and the variety and amount
of vegetation needed)
> Construction costs (includes direct capital
costs for site preparation, plant material,
and irrigation and monitoring equipment
and indirect costs, such as those for
permitting during construction, contingency
design, and startup)
> Operation and maintenance and
monitoring costs (includes the cost of
labor, materials, chemicals, utilities,
laboratory analysis, disposal, and
monitoring)
As discussed in other sections of this primer,
startup and maintenance costs often are less
with phytoremediation than with conventional
treatment technologies because: (1)
phytoremediation is a natural process using
solar energy; (2) phytoremediation is in situ
and requires no digging or hauling of
contaminated soil; and (3) little or no
mechanical equipment is required to operate
the phytoremediation process. On the other
hand, monitoring costs could be higher than
with conventional treatment technologies
because monitoring typically is required for a
longer period of time at sites where
phytoremediation is used.
In comparing the potential costs to use
phytoremediation with the potential cost to use
conventional treatment technologies at a site,
care must be taken to compare the costs of
the entire system for the entire life cycle.
Under phytoextraction, the cost of processing
and ultimate disposal of biomass generated is
likely to account for a major percentage of
overall costs.
7.1 Cost Savings Based on Actual Cost
Estimates
Table 3 provides site-specific estimates that
have been reported of the cost savings
realized by using phytoremediation rather than
conventional treatment technologies
7.2 Sample Phytoremediation Costs
The estimated 30-year costs (1998 dollars) for
remediating a 12-acre lead site were
$12,000,000 for excavation and disposal,
$6,300,000 for soil washing, $600,000 for a
soil cap, and $200,000 for phytoextraction
(Cunningham 1996 in Introduction to
Phytoremediation (EPA/600/R-99/107)). The
costs of cleanup of various heavy metals at
the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant,
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN Project were
reported in the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable (see Supporting
Resources) to be $153 per cubic yard of soil
over the life of the project.
The costs of removing radionuclides from
water with sunflowers has been estimated to
be $2 to $6 per thousand gallons of water
(Dushenkov et al. 1997 in Introduction to
Phytoremediation (EPA/600/R-99/107)). The
20
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
costs of cleanup of explosives at the Milan
Army Ammunition Plant, Milan, TN were
reported in the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable (see Supporting
Resources) to be $1.78 per thousand gallons
of water over the life of the project.
Estimated costs for hydraulic control of an
unspecified contaminant in a 20-foot-deep
aquifer at a 1-acre site were $660,000 for
conventional pump-and-treat and $250,000
for phytoremediation (Gatliff 1994 in
Introduction to Phytoremediation (EPA/600/R-
99/107)).
Cost estimates indicate savings for an
evapotranspiration cover compared to a
traditional cover design to be 20-50%,
depending on availability of suitable soil
(RTDF 1998 in Introduction to
Phytoremediation (EPA/600/R-99/107)).
Studies indicate that phytoremediation is
competitive with other treatment alternatives,
as costs are approximately 50 to 80 percent of
the costs associated with physical, chemical,
or thermal techniques at applicable sites.
Table 3
Estimated Cost Savings Through the Use of Phytoremediation
Rather Than Conventional Treatment
Contaminant
and Matrix
Lead in soil
(1 acre)3
Solvents in
groundwater
(2.5 acres)"
Total petroleum
hydrocarbons
in soil (1 acre)0
Phytoremediation
Application
Extraction, harvest,
and disposal
Degradation and
hydraulic control
In-situ degradation
Estimated Cost
$150,000 -$250,000
$200,000 for
installation and
initial maintenance
$50,000 -$100,000
Conventional Treatment
Application
Excavate and
landfill
Pump and
treat
Excavate and
landfill or
incinerate
Estimated Cost
$500,000
$700,000 annual
operating cost
$500,000
Projected
Savings
50-65 percent
50 percent cost
saving by third
year
80 percent
Source: Introduction to Phytoremediation. EPA/600/R-99/107. February 2000.
a Phytotech estimate for Magic Marker site
b Potentially responsible party estimate for SRS site
c PERF estimate
21
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
8.0 SUPPORTING RESOURCES
This section identifies Internet sites and
documents that will help the user obtain
additional information about
phytoremediation. In addition, Table 4
presents a list of references used to prepare
this document and a guide to the subject
matter included in each reference.
> EPA. Office of Research and
Development (ORD) Internet web site
(http://www.epa.gov/ord). ORD is the
principal scientific and research arm of
EPA. ORD conducts research and
fosters the use of science and technology
in fulfilling EPA's mission. ORD is
organized as three national laboratories
and two national centers located in a
dozen facilities around the country and in
Washington, D.C. Several EPA
laboratories have work underway to
determine the fate of contaminants in
phytoremediation applications. Much of
this work is based at the EPA National
Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRML). (Refer to the description below.)
ORD along with the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OWSER)
supports the Remediation Technologies
Development Forum (RTDF) that also is
described in more detail below. In
addition within ORD, the EPA National
Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL)
http://www.epa.gov/NERU, is exploring
topics such as the degradation of TNT by
wetland plants and plant
enzyme-contaminant interactions. The
EPA-supported Hazardous Substance
Research Center at Kansas State
University engages in research on plant
and contaminant interactions. EPA
Region 10 continues to explore and
encourage innovative applications and
interactions between phytoremediation
and ecosystem restoration.
> EPA. National Risk Management
Research Laboratory (NRMRL).
Introduction to Phytoremediation
(EPA/600/R-99/107). February 2000.
(Web site availability http://cluin.org/
techfocus). The National Risk
Management Research Laboratory,
(NRMRL), part of EPA's Office of
Research and Development, conduct
research into ways to prevent and reduce
risks from pollution that threaten human
health and the environment. The
laboratory has a broad program of
investigating methods and their cost-
effectiveness for prevention and control
of pollution including those relevant to
remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and groundwater. NRMRL
collaborates with both public and private
sector partners to foster technologies that
reduce the cost of compliance and to
anticipate emerging problems. Its
Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program encourages
the development and implementation of
innovative treatment technologies for
hazardous waste site remediation. The
phytoremediation document has been
developed to provide a tool for site
regulators, owners, neighbors, and
managers to evaluate the applicability of
phytoremediation to a site. Information
on the SITE program or individual
projects can be found at
http://www. epa. gov/ORD/SITE.
* Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable (FRTR) Case Studies
http://www.frtr.gov/cost
The Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable (FRTR) case studies contain
detailed information about specific
remedial technology applications. FRTR
case studies are developed by the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD), the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), the
22
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force (USAF), the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI),
and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). As of September 1998,
FRTR published and made available on
its Internet site 140 cost and performance
case studies. The case studies focus on
full-scale and large field demonstration
projects and include background
information about the site, a description
of the technology, cost and performance
data for the technology application, and a
discussion of lessons learned. Both
innovative and conventional treatment
technologies for contaminated soil,
groundwater, and solid media are
included. A search function on the web
site allows a user to search the case
studies using key words for media,
contaminant, and primary and
supplemental technologies.
Interstate Technology and Regulatory
Cooperation Work Group (ITRC).
Phytoremediation Decision Tree.
November 1999 (Web site availability
http://www.itrcweb.org). ITRC is a
state-led national coalition dedicated to
achieving better environmental protection
through the use of innovative
technologies. ITRC helps regulatory
agencies and technology developers,
vendors, and users reduce the technical
and regulatory barriers to the deployment
of new environmental technologies. ITRC
products and services are building the
collective confidence of the environmental
community about using new technologies.
Phytoremediation is one such technology.
ITRC has provided a tool that can be
used to determine whether
Phytoremediation can be effective at a
given site. It allows the user to use basic
information about a specific site to
decide, through the use of a flow chart
layout, whether phytoremediation is
feasible at that site.
EPA. Phytoremediation Resource
Guide. June 1999 . (EPA 542-B-99-003)
(Web site availability http://cluin.org/
techfocus). The document identifies a
cross-section of information intended to
aid users in remedial decision-making,
including abstracts of field
demonstrations, research documents,
and information about ordering
publications.
EPA. A Citizen's Guide to
Phytoremediation. April 2001. (EPA
542-F-01-002) (Web site availability
http://cluin.org/techfocus). The
document is a technology fact sheet
developed to help communicate to citizen
stakeholders issues related to the use of
phytoremediation.
The Remediation Technologies
Development Forum (RTDF).
Internet web site (http://www.rtdf.org) -
EPA established the RTDF in 1992 by
determining what government and
industry can do together to develop and
improve the environmental technologies
needed to address their mutual cleanup
problems in the safest, most cost-
effective manner possible. The RTDF
fosters public- and private-sector
partnerships to undertake research,
development, demonstration, and
evaluation efforts focused on finding
innovative solutions to high-priority
problems. The RTDF has grown to
include partners from industry, several
federal and state government agencies,
and academia who voluntarily share
knowledge, experience, equipment,
facilities, and even proprietary technology
to achieve common cleanup goals. The
Phytoremediation of Organics Action
Team and the In-Place Inactivation and
Natural Ecological Restoration
Technologies (IINERT) Soil- Metals
Action Team are two of eight Action
Teams that foster collaboration between
23
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
the public and private sectors in
developing innovative phytoremediation
solutions to hazardous waste problems.
The Action Teams include
representatives from industry,
government, and academia who share an
interest in further developing and
validating the of use of plants and trees to
remediate organic hazardous wastes in
soil and water.
Public Technologies, Inc.
Brownfieldstech Internet web site
(http://www.brownfieldstech.org) - The
site is a source of information about
characterization and remediation of
brownfields sites. The web site is
sponsored by EPA's TIO. It is hosted and
maintained by Public Technology, Inc.
(PTI), the technology development arm of
the National League of Cities, the
National Association of Counties, and the
International City/County Management
Association. The site focuses on the
demonstration, dissemination, and
promotion of innovative characterization
and remediation technologies for
brownfields. Its goal is to help local
governments increase efficiencies and
reduce costs associated with brownfields
redevelopment. See "Hot Technologies"
page for links to reports on projects
utilizing phytoremediation.
EPA. The Hazardous Waste Clean-Up
Information (Clu-ln) System
Internet web site (http://cluin.org/
techfocus) - EPA's Clu-ln provides
information about innovative treatment
technologies to the hazardous waste
remediation community. It describes
programs, organizations, publications,
and other tools for federal and state
personnel, consulting engineers,
technology developers and vendors,
remediation contractors, researchers,
community groups, and individual
citizens. The site is managed by EPA's
TIO and is intended as a forum for all
waste remediation stakeholders.
24
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
SELECTING AND USING PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR SITE CLEANUP
Table 4
References by Topic
Reference
Rock, Steven. 1997. "Phytoremediation." The Standard Handbook of
Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, Second Edition. Harry Freeman,
ed. McGraw Hill.
CERCLA Education Center. 2000. Innovative Treatment Technology Course,
Module on Phytoremediation.
Phytoremediation Work Team, Interstate Technology and Regulatory
Cooperation Work Group. 1999. Decision Tree Document. November.
EPA. 1998. A Citizen's Guide to Phytoremediation, Technology Fact Sheet
(EPA542-F-98-011). August.
Brownfieldstech.org Internet web site (particularly for case studies). 2000.
Rock, Steven and Philip Sayre. 1998. "Phytoremediation of Hazardous
Wastes: Potential Regulatory Acceptability." Vol. 8, No. 4.
Black, Harvey. 1999. "Phytoremediation: A Growing Field with Some
Concerns." The Scientist. Volume 13, Number 5. March.
Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Work Group. 1999.
Phytoremediation Technical and Regulatory Guidance.
CH2MHNI. 1999. Guidance for Successful Phytoremediation. Prepared for
CWRT. March.
Lasat, Mitch. 2000. "Notes of a Plant Scientist."
EPA. 2000. Introduction to Phytoremediation (EPM600/R-99n07). February.
EPA. 1999. Phytoremediation Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-99-003). June.
EPA. 1 998. Electrokinetic and Phytoremediation In Situ Treatment of Metal-
Contaminated Soil: State-of-the-Practice.
What is
Phytoremediation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Examples of
Phytoremediation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Advantages and
Considerations in
Selecting
Phytoremediation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Significance of
Site
Characterization
•
•
•
Note: The table provides a list of references that were used to develop this primer.
25
-------
-------
APPENDIX 1
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
bgs Below ground surface
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
BTSC Brownfields Technology Support Center
cm Centimeter
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Cooperation Work Group
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratories
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl
PCP Pentachlorophenol
QA/QC Quality assurance and quality control
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
TCA Trichloroethane
TCE Trichloroethylene
TIO Technology Innovation Office
TNT Trinitrotoluene
UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
VOC Volatile organic compound
APPENDIX 1 - List of Acronyms and Glossary of Key Terms
-------
Abiotic
Not biotic or living.
Absorption
The process of one
substance actually
penetrating into the structure
of another substance. The
process is different from
adsorption, in which one
substance adheres to the
surface of another substance.
Adsorption
The physical process that
occurs when liquids, gases,
or suspended matter adheres
to the surfaces of, or in the
pores of, an adsorbent
material. The process is
physical and occurs without a
chemical reaction.
Agronomic
The application of soil and
plant sciences to soil
management and crop
production; scientific
agriculture.
Bench-Scale
Testing phase conducted to
demonstrate effectiveness of
an emerging treatment
technology; usually a small-
scale version is tested under
laboratory conditions.
Bioaccumulation
The absorption and
concentration of
contaminants, such as heavy
metals, in plants and animals.
Bioconcentration is a
synonym for bioaccumulation.
Biomass
All the living matter present in
a given area; organic
structures produced by living
organisms. The generic term
for any living matter that can
be converted into usable
energy through biological or
chemical processes. Can be
expressed numerically as a
mass-density or as calories
per unit area.
Biotic
Related to life or specific life
conditions; living.
Brownfields
An abandoned, idled, or
under-used industrial or
commercial facility where
expansion or redevelopment
is complicated by real or
perceived environmental
contamination.
Cap
A barrier that covers
contaminated media and that
prevents rainwater from
percolating into the ground
and causing contaminants
under the cap to leach into
groundwater. Also may
prevent surface exposure to
covered contaminants.
Cation Exchange
A chemical process in which
positively charged ions of like
charge are exchanged
equally between a solid and a
solution (such as water).
Chelates
A compound in which a
metallic ion is attached by
covalent bonds to two or
more nonmetallic atoms in
the same molecule.
Chelating agents are used to
remove metals, particularly
lead, from insoluble soil
fractions and keep them in
solution.
Concentration
The amount of a specified
substance in a unit amount of
another substance; the
relative abundance of a
solute in a solution.
Degradation
Decomposition of a
compound by stages,
exhibiting well-defined
intermediate products.
Drip Irrigation
Irrigation whereby water is
slowly applied to the soil
surface through small
emitters that have a low rate
of discharge.
Emergent Plant
An herbacious plant standing
erect and rooted in shallow
water, with most of the plant
growing above the water's
surface.
APPENDIX 1 - List of Acronyms and Glossary of Key Terms
-------
Evapotranspiration
The loss of water from the
soil both by evaporation and
by transpiration from the
plants growing in the soil.
Evaporation involves the
change of state of water from
liquid to gas form as water
molecules escape from the
surface of a body into the
atmosphere. Transpiration is
the process by which water is
drawn from the soil by
osmotic pressure of the root
systems of vegetation and
moved through the leaves to
the surrounding atmosphere.
Extraction
Removal by chemical or
mechanical action.
Full-Scale Technology
An established technology for
which cost and performance
information is readily
available.
Groundwater
The supply of fresh water
found beneath the Earth's
surface, usually in aquifers,
that supplies wells and
springs.
Herbacious Plant
A plant with no persistent
woody stem above ground.
Hydrostatic Barrier
In phytoremediation, the use
of plants to control movement
of water, generally from an
area of higher levels of
contamination to an area of
lower levels of contamination.
Hyperaccumulators
Metallophytes that
accumulate an exceptionally
high level of a metal to a
specified concentration or to
a specified multiple of the
concentration found in
nonaccumulators. Alpine
pennycress is an example
(see metallophytes).
Immobilize
To make incapable of further
movement.
In Situ
In place, without excavation.
In situ soil technologies treat
contamination without digging
up or removing the
contaminants.
Indian Mustard (Brassica
juncea)
A potentially useful plant with
relatively high biomass that is
not a hyperaccumulator. The
plant has been frequently
used in toxic metal and
radionuclide phytoextraction.
Infiltration
To pass into or through a
substance (such as soil) by
penetrating its pores or
interstices; generally refers to
water entering a physical
area.
Innovative Treatment
Technologies
A technology that has been
field-tested and applied to a
hazardous waste problem at
a site, but lacks a long history
of full-scale use. Information
about its cost and how well it
works may be insufficient to
encourage use under a wide
variety of operating
conditions. Innovative
treatment technologies are
better analyzed on a site-by-
site basis.
Inorganic Chemical or
Compound
A chemical or compound that
generally does not contain
carbon atoms (carbonate and
bicarbonate compounds are
notable exceptions).
Examples of inorganic
compounds include various
acids and metals.
Leaching
A process through which a
liquid in contact with or
moving through a solid
mobilizes constituents from
the solid through the actions
of dissolution and physical
transport.
Lignification
Formation into wood through
the formation and deposit of
lignin (a polymer functioning
as a natural binder and
support for the cellulose fiber
of woody plants) in cell walls;
the process of making
something woody.
APPENDIX 1 - List of Acronyms and Glossary of Key Terms
-------
Mass Transfer
The conveyance of any
material like liquids, gases, or
solid materials from one
location to another location;
in phytoremediation, the term
might refer to the conveyance
of a contaminant from soil or
groundwater to a plant.
Metallophytes
Plants that preferentially
colonize in metal-rich soils.
Microorganisims
An organism too tiny to be
seen by the unaided eye.
Includes bacteria, algae,
fungi, and viruses.
Natural Attenuation
An approach to cleanup that
uses natural processes over
time to contain contamination
and reduce the
concentrations and amounts
of pollutants in contaminated
soil and groundwater. The
processes of natural
attenuation include dilution,
volatilization, biodegredation,
and adsorption.
Nutrients
Elements or compounds
essential for the growth and
development of an organism.
Nitrogen, phosphorous, and
potassium are examples of
essential plant nutrients.
Organic Chemical or
Compound
A chemical or compound
produced by animals or
plants that contains mainly
carbon, hydrogen, and
oxygen.
Phreatophyte
A deep-rooted plant that
obtains water from the water
table.
Phytocap (or Vegetative
Cap)
A long-term, self-sustaining
planted area growing in and
over materials that pose an
environmental risk. The
phytocap requires minimal
maintenance and is designed
to reduce the risk that the
contaminant will leach.
Phytoremediation
A technology that uses living
plants to remediate or
stabilize contaminants in soil,
sediment, surface water, or
groundwater.
Phytotoxic
Harmful to plants.
Pilot-Scale Testing
Testing stage of a treatment
technology, between bench-
and full-scale, that is
conducted in the field to
provide data on performance,
cost, and design objectives
for the treatment technology.
Plume
A visible or measurable
emission or discharge of a
contaminant from a given
point of origin into any
medium.
Poplar (Eastern
Cottonwood or Populus
deltoides)
A tree widely studied for its
potential for hydraulic control,
phytodegredation, and
phytovolatilization.
Rhizosphere
The zone of soil adjacent to
plant roots that exhibits
significantly higher microbial
numbers, species, and
activity than bulk soil.
Root Zone
Generally considered to be
the area surrounding the
underground part of a plant,
the functions of which include
absorption, aeration, and
storage for the plant.
Sorption
The action of soaking up or
attracting substances—a
general term used to
encompass the processes of
absorption and adsorption.
Submergent Species
Plant species that lie entirely
under water.
Transpiration
The plant-based process that
involves the uptake,
transport, and eventual
vaporization of water through
the plant's leaves.
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC)
Organic chemicals capable of
becoming vapor at relatively
low temperatures.
Volatilization
The transfer of a chemical
from the aqueous or liquid
phase to the gas phase.
Solubility, modular weight, the
vapor pressure of the liquid
and the nature of the gas-
liquid affect the rate of
volatilization.
APPENDIX 1 - List of Acronyms and Glossary of Key Terms
-------
APPENDIX 2
THE PROCESSES OF PHYTOREMEDIATION
Phytoremediation can be classified according to the biological processes involved. Those
processes are described below.
Hydraulic Control, also known as phytohydraulics, is designed to control groundwater
transport mechanisms through plant transpiration. The process uses plants that have a high
transpiration rate to take up large quantities of water, thereby achieving hydraulic control of the
site to contain contaminants and prevent their further migration. The transpiration rate depends
on the type of plant, leaf area, nutrients, soil moisture, temperature, wind conditions, and
relative humidity.
Phytodegradation, also known as phytotransformation, is the uptake of organic contaminants
from soil and groundwater, followed by their degradation in plant tissue. The extent of
degradation depends on the efficiency of contaminant uptake and the concentration of
contaminants in soil and groundwater. Uptake efficiency depends on the contaminant's
physical and chemical properties and the plant itself. After uptake, the plant either stores the
contaminants or volatizes or metabolizes the contaminants completely to carbon dioxide and
water. The process is an efficient removal mechanism at shallow depths for moderately
hydrophobic organic contaminants like benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX);
chlorinated solvents; and short-chain aliphatic hydrocarbons.
Phytoextraction uses plants to transport metals from the soil and concentrate them into roots
and aboveground shoots that can be harvested. Many types of plants can be used to remove
metals. Some grasses accumulate surprisingly high levels of metals in their shoots without
exhibiting toxic effects. However, their low biomass production results in a relatively low
extraction rate for metals. Genetic engineering or breeding of hyperaccumulating plants for
high biomass production could make the extraction process highly effective. Using crop plants
to extract metals from the soil seems practical because of their high biomass production and
relatively fast growth rate. Crop plants also are easy to cultivate and exhibit genetic stability.
However, using crop plants to accumulate metals is a potential threat to the food chain.
Phytostabilization uses plants to limit the mobility and bioavailability of metals in soil by
sorption, precipitation, complexation, or the reduction of metal valences. The process helps to
stabilize the soil matrix to minimize erosion and migration of sediment. To eliminate the
possibility that residues in harvested shoots might become hazardous wastes, phytostabilizing
plants should exhibit low levels of accumulation of metals in shoots. Phytostabilization
immobilizes metal contaminants in the soil through a combination of processes, including
reaction with soil amendments, adsorption or accumulation in the rhizosphere, and physical
stabilization of the soil. In addition, the process minimizes the generation of airborne
contaminants caused by wind erosion. Some researchers consider an interim measure to be
applied until extraction becomes fully developed. Other researches are developing
Phytostabilization as a standard protocol of metal remediation technology, especially at sites at
which removal of metals does not seem economically feasible.
APPENDIX 2- The Process of Phytoremediation
-------
Phytovolatilization uses plants to takeup volatile organic compounds (VOC) and the metabolic
products of the plant and transpire them into the atmosphere. Because VOCs are released into
the atmosphere through plant transpiration, air monitoring may be required. This form of
phytoremediation may not be as desirable as in situ degradation, but it may be preferable to
prolonged contamination of soil and groundwater contamination.
Rhizodegradation also known as phytostimulation, plant-assisted bioremediation, or enhanced
rhizosphere bioremediation, is root-stimulated microbial degradation of organic contaminants.
Rhizodegradation involves a root zone that provides a habitat for beneficial microbial growth
and fungi associated with plant roots that help in metabolizing organic contaminants. Root
turnover for trees like mulberry, osage orange, and apple release flavonoids and coumarin that
stimulate the degradation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB).
Rhizofiltration is the removal or concentration of metal contaminants from an aquatic
environment such as contaminated surface water and groundwater in the root zone. One
variation of rhizofiltration removes metals by sorption, which involves biochemical processes.
The roots absorb, concentrate, and precipitate metals from polluted effluent, which may include
leachate from soil. Another variation of rhizofiltration is the construction of wetlands or reed
beds for the treatment of contaminated water or leachate. The technology generally has been
found to be cost-effective for the treatment of large volumes of wastewater that contain low
concentrations of metals. Plant species used for rhizofiltration often are raised hydroponically
in greenhouses and transplanted to a floating system in which the roots are in contact with
contaminated water.
APPENDIX 2- The Process of Phytoremediation
-------
APPENDIX 3
PHYTOREMEDIATION DECISION TREE MODELS
The three decision tree charts on the following pages were developed by the Phytoremediation
Work Group of the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Work Group (ITRC).
The Phytoremediation Work Team effort, as part of the broader ITRC effort, is funded primarily
by the U.S. Department of Energy. Additional funding and support is provided be the U.S.
Department of Defense and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
These charts provide guidelines for determining the applicability of phytoremediation at a
brownfields site after site characterization for the treatment of soil, groundwater, or sediments
has been completed.
APPENDIX 3 - Phytoremediation Decision Tree Models
-------
Decision Tree for Phytoremediation
Soil
YES I Will the climate support the proposed plants? I NO
NO I Is time or space a constraint?! YES
37
YES I Is the contaminant physically within the range of the proposed plant (typically less than 1 -2 feet bgs)? I NO
NO
Is the contaminant at phytotoxic concentrations
(this may require a greenhouse dose-response test)'
YES
Are there hotspots that can be
removed or treated?
YES
Will the rhizosphere microbes and plant-exuded enzymes degrade the target
contaminants in the rhizosphere and are the metabolic products acceptable?
NO
NO
Is the log Kow of the contaminant or metabolic
products between 1 and 3.5 (will uptake occur)?
YES
Will the plant degrade the
contaminant after uptake and are
the metabolic products acceptable?
NO
NO
lt~\ N0
Will the plants transpire the
contaminant or metabolic products?
YES
Is the quantity and rate of transpiration
acceptable for this site?
NO
Will the plant accumulate the contaminant
or metabolic products after uptake?
YES
Is the level of accumulation acceptable
for this site throughout the growth of the plant'
NO
YES
Can controls be put in place to prevent
the transfer of the contaminant or metabolic
products from a plant to humans/animals?
NO
^ YES I Can engineering controls make it acceptable?! NO
YES
Is the final disposition of the contaminant
or metabolic products acceptable?
NO
YES
Can the contaminant or metabolic product
be immobilized to acceptable levels?
NO
NO I Does the plant material constitute a waste if harvested?! YES
YES I Can the plant waste be economically disposed? I NO
Phytoremediation is NOT an option
at the site; consider other options
APPENDIX 3 - Phytoremediation Decision Tree Models
-------
Decision Tree for Phytoremediation
Groundwater
YES I Will the climate support the proposed plants? I NO
NO I Is time or space a constraint?! YES
YES
Is the contaminant physically within the range of the proposed plant
(typically less than 10-20 feet bgs for Salix species - willows, cottonwoods, poplars)?
NO
YES
Will the plants be used for hydraulic
control ONLY (prevent water from
REACHING the contaminated zone)?
NO
YES
Will the water be mechanically pumped and
applied to the phytoremediation system?
NO
YES
NO
Is the contaminant at phytotoxic concentrations
(this may require a greenhouse dose-response test)'
Will state regulations allow
this type of phytoremediation?
YES
Will the rhizosphere microbes and plant-exuded enzymes degrade the target
contaminants in the rhizosphere and are the metabolic products acceptable?
NO
NO
Is the log Kow of the contaminant or metabolic
products between 1 and 3.5 (will uptake occur)?
YES
YES
Will the plant degrade the
contaminant after uptake and are
the metabolic products acceptable?
NO
NO
Will the plants transpire the
contaminant or metabolic products?
YES
YES
Is the quantity and rate of transpiration
acceptable for this site?
NO
NO
Will the plant accumulate the contaminant
or metabolic products after uptake?
YES
YES
Is the level of accumulation acceptable
for this site throughout the growth of the plant?
NO
YES
Can controls be put in place to prevent
the transfer of the contaminant or metabolic
products from a plant to humans/animals?
NO
YES I Can engineering controls make it acceptable?! NO
YES
Is the final disposition of the contaminant
or metabolic products acceptable?
YES
Can the contaminant or metabolic product
be immobilized to acceptable levels?
NO
^ NO I Does the plant material constitute a waste if harvested?! YES
YES I Can the plant waste be economically disposed? I NO
Phytoremediation has the potential
i be effective at the sits
Phytoremediation is NOT an option
at the site; consider other options
APPENDIX 3 - Phytoremediation Decision Tree Models
-------
Decision Tree for Phytoremediation
Sediments
| YES | Will the climate support the proposed plants?) NO
NO I Is time or space a constraint?! YES
YES I Can the sediments be treated in place (wetlands)? I NO
Are the sediments
to be dredged?
YES I Will the regulatory statutes allow the dredged sediments to be treated as a soil? I NO
YES I Is there strong public support to treat the sediment as a soil? I NO
| YES | Is the contaminant physically within the range of the proposed plant (typically less than 1 -2 feet bgs)? | NO
NO
Is the contaminant at phytotoxic concentrations
(this may require a greenhouse dose-response test) <
YbS
| YES
Are there hotspots that can be
removed or treated?
NO |
YES
Will the rhizosphere microbes and plant-exuded enzymes degrade the target
contaminants in the rhizosphere and are the metabolic products acceptable?
NO
NO
Is the log Kow of the contaminant or metabolic
products between 1 and 3.5 (will uptake occur)?
YES
YES
Will the plant degrade the
contaminant after uptake and are
the metabolic products acceptable?
NO
NO
Will the plants transpire the
contaminant or metabolic products?
YES
Is the quantity and rate of transpiration
acceptable for this site?
NO
NO
Will the plant accumulate the contaminant
or metabolic products after uptake?
YES
Is the level of accumulation acceptable
for this site throughout the growth of the plant'
NO
YES
Can controls be put in place to prevent
the transfer of the contaminant or metabolic
products from a plant to humans/animals?
NO
| YES | Can engineering controls make it acceptable?| NO
YES
Is the final disposition of the contaminant
or metabolic products acceptable?
NO
YES
Can the contaminant or metabolic product
be immobilized to acceptable levels?
NO
^ NO I Does the plant material constitute a waste if harvested?! YES
YES I Can the plant waste be economically disposed? I NO
-^.(^Phytoremediation has the potential
' > be effective at the sits
Phytoremediation is NOT an option |l-<-
at the site; consider other options J9
APPENDIX 3 - Phytoremediation Decision Tree Models
-------
For additional information, please see these other publications
issued by the Brownfields Technology Support Center:
Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for
Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup, Second Edition
EPA 542-B-99-009
Directory of Technology Support Services to Brownfields Localities
EPA 542-B-99-005
Assessing Contractor Capabilities for Streamlined
Site Investigations
EPA 542-R-00-001
Brownfields Technology Primer: Requesting and Evaluating
Proposals That Encourage Innovative Technologies for
Investigation and Cleanup
EPA542-R-01-005
These publications are available online at:
http://www. brownfieldstsc. org
or can be ordered by contacting:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Service Center for Environmental Publications
(NSCEP)
P.O. Box42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
1 (800)490-9198
FAX (513) 489-8695
-------
E PA 542-R-01-006
July 2001
Brownfields Technology Primer:
Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site Cleanup
Visit the Brownfields Technology
Support Center Web Site at:
http://www.brownfieldstsc.org
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102G)
EPA542-B-01-001
www.epa.gov/TIO
http://clu-in.org/roadmap
R°ad Map to Understanding Innovative
Technology Options for Brownfields
Investigation and Cleanup, Third Edition
NEW AND UPDATED
RESOURCES
TECHNOLOGY ISSUES
-------
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS
INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP, THIRD EDITION
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
Washington, DC 20460
-------
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
NOTICE
Preparation of this document has been funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under Contract 68-W-99-020. The document was subjected to the Agency's administrative and expert review
and was approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Technology Innovation Office acknowledges and thanks the individuals who reviewed and provided
comments on draft documents. The reviewers included representatives of business, community and grassroots
organizations, EPA Headquarters and regional offices, local government and city planning offices, and public
interest groups.
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
CONTENTS
NOTICE i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
BACKGROUND 2
INTRODUCTION 4
How to Use The Road Map 6
BEFORE YOU BEGIN 8
ROAD MAP 15
SITE ASSESSMENT 17
SITE INVESTIGATION 27
CLEANUP OPTIONS 41
CLEANUP DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 63
SPOTLIGHTS
S1 OTHER REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES:
Reducing Barriers to Redevelopment of Brownfields Sites 25
S2 MOTHBALLED PROPERTIES:
Unlocking Sites with Innovative Technologies 26
S3 KEYS TO TECHNOLOGY SELECTION AND ACCEPTANCE 38
S4 THE TRIAD APPROACH:
Streamlining Site Investigations and Cleanup Decisions 39
S5 DATA QUALITY AND REPRESENTATIVENESS:
Keys to Cost-Effective Site Investigation 40
S6 STATE DRYCLEANER REMEDIATION PROGRAMS:
An Innovative Approach to Cleanup 46
S7 REMEDIATING MANUFACTURED GAS PLANT SITES:
Emerging Remediation Technologies 47
S8 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS AT BROWNFIELDS SITES:
Technology Options for Tank Remediation 55
S9 PHYTOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY:
A Growing Field 56
S10 CLEANUP OF DENSE NONAQUEOUS PHASE LIQUIDS:
A Widespread Challenge 62
S11 UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AT BROWNFIELDS SITES:
Major Concepts and Issues 66
APPENDICES
A GUIDE TO CONTAMINANTS AND TECHNOLOGIES A-1
B LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS B-1
C LIST OF BROWNFIELDS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT CONTACTS C-1
D HOW TO ORDER DOCUMENTS D-1
INDEX OF RESOURCES 1-1
CD-ROM Inside Back Cover
1
-------
HAP TO FOR AND
BACKGROUND
"f?T, vV
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
defined brownfields sites as "abandoned, idled, or
under-used industrial and commercial facilities
where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by
real or perceived environmental contamination."
EPA established its Brownfields Economic
Redevelopment Initiative to empower states,
communities, and other stakeholders in economic
revitalization to work together to accomplish the
redevelopment of such sites. Many states and local
jurisdictions also help businesses and communities
adapt environmental cleanup programs to
the special needs of brownfields sites.
Preparing brownfields sites for productive
reuse requires the integration of many
elements—financial issues, community
involvement, liability considerations,
environmental assessment and cleanup,
regulatory requirements, and more—as well
as coordination among many groups of
stakeholders. The assessment and cleanup
of a site must be carried out in a way that
integrates all those factors into the overall
redevelopment process. In addition, the
cleanup strategy will vary from site to site.
At some sites, cleanup will be completed
before the property is transferred to new
owners. At other sites, cleanup may take
place simultaneously with construction and
redevelopment activities. Regardless of
when and how cleanup is accomplished,
the challenge to any brownfields program is
to clean up sites in accordance with
redevelopment goals. Such goals may
include cost-effectiveness, timeliness, and
avoidance of adverse effects on structures on
the site and on neighboring communities, as
well as redevelopment of the land in a way that
benefits communities and local economies.
Why Innovative Technologies?
Numerous technology options are available to assist
those involved in brownfields cleanup. EPA's
Technology Innovation Office (TIO) encourages the
use of smarter solutions for characterizing and
cleaning up contaminated sites by advocating more
effective, less costly technology approaches. The use
of innovative technologies to characterize and clean
up brownfields sites provides opportunities for
stakeholders to reduce the cost of cleanup and
accelerate the cleanup schedule. When such factors
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
as lower cost, an increased level of environmental
protection, and improved effectiveness are
considered, innovative technologies frequently are
more cost-effective and provide better and more
efficient cleanup than established treatment
technologies. Often, they also are more acceptable to
communities.
EPA defines an innovative technology as one that has
been used in the field but that does not yet have a
long history of full-scale use. In addition, data about
the cost and performance of innovative technologies
may not be sufficient to encourage decision makers to
select those technologies over established
technologies. A primary area of interest to EPA is
documenting and disseminating information about
the cost and performance of innovative technologies.
EPA, through its work with the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable, has seen significant
progress in this area. Innovative technologies are
being used in many cleanup programs to assess
contamination and to clean up sites.
Comprehensive information about the range of these
technologies and their use, as well as technical
expertise pertinent to them, is available from EPA's
Brownfields Technology Support Center (BTSC),
coordinated through TIO and supported by EPA's
Office of Research and Development (ORD).
Established in 1999 as a pilot program, the BTSC
assists brownfields decision makers by presenting
strategies for streamlining site assessment and
cleanup, identifying information about technology
options, evaluating plans and documents, describing
complex technologies to communities, and providing
demonstration support (see page 11 for more
information about the BTSC).
An Emerging Technology is an innovative technology that
currently is undergoing bench-scale testing, in which a
small version of the technology is tested in a laboratory.
An Innovative Technology is a technology that has been
field-tested and applied to a hazardous waste problem at a
site, but lacks a long history of full-scale use. Information
about its cost and how well it works may be insufficient to
support prediction of its performance under a wide variety
of operating conditions.
An Established Technology is atechnologyforwhich cost
and performance information is readily available. Only
after a technology has been used at many different sites
and the results fully documented is that technology
considered to be established.
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 3
-------
MAP TO FOR AND
INTRODUCTION
The Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology
Options for Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup, Third
Edition, includes new and updated resources to assist
in the identification and selection of innovative site
characterization and cleanup technologies for
brownfields redevelopment. The Road Map and
accompanying CD-ROM provide a generally
applicable outline of the steps in the cleanup of a site
slated for redevelopment, and introduce brownfields
stakeholders to the range of innovative technology
options and resources available to them. The Road
Map provides valuable information to a wide range of
stakeholders involved in or affected by the
redevelopment of brownfields sites, whether public
projects, private developments, or public-
private partnerships. The third edition, which
incorporates minor revisions in the structure
and content of the second edition, has been
expanded significantly to include new and
updated resources, which are included on the
Road Map CD-ROM.
The first edition of the Road Map, published in
1997, provided a broad overview of EPA's
brownfields program and an outline of the
steps involved in the cleanup of a brownfields
site. Targeted primarily at stakeholders who
were unfamiliar with the elements of cleaning
up a brownfields site, the Road Map built
awareness of the advantages offered by
innovative technologies. As the brownfields
program matured, a second edition of the Road
Map was published in 1999 to provide
updated information and resources about the
program, including additional details about
the technologies available for addressing
contamination at brownfields sites. This
edition, accompanied by a CD-ROM, provided
easier access to the wide range of information and
resources included in the Road Map.
The new third edition has been developed for use by a
broader audience, ranging from those who may have a
limited understanding of the brownfields program
and technical background to those who are more
experienced. Updated with approximately 70 new
resources and one-page descriptions of technologies,
processes, and initiatives that affect the use and
consideration of innovative technologies, the newest
edition of the Road Map will help:
• New and less experienced stakeholders learn about
EPA's brownfields program in general.
• Decision makers who are familiar with the
brownfields programs but are also interested in
obtaining more detailed information about
technologies. The Road Map provides these users
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
with current and up-to-date information about the
applicability of innovative technologies and ready
access to the latest resources that can assist them
in making their technology decisions.
• Stakeholders that hire or oversee site cleanup
professionals (such as environmental consultants,
cleanup contractors, technology vendors, or staff of
analytical laboratories). The Road Map provides
these stakeholders with a detailed understanding
of the different phases of cleanup of a brownfields
site and provides information about the role these
professionals play in the process and how to
encourage consideration of the use of innovative
technologies.
• Regulators by increasing their understanding of
the brownfields program and the advantages
innovative technologies and approaches may
provide throughout the cleanup process. The
Road Map also serves as a resource for regulators
to provide site owners, service providers, and other
stakeholders with useful information about the
brownfields program.
• Community members by providing information
about the general cleanup process and guidelines
and mechanisms that ensure that they are
involved in the decision-making process.
• Other stakeholders, such as financial institutions
and insurance agencies, by providing information
for use in assessing and minimizing risk
associated with brownfields redevelopment.
It is important to understand that the site
characterization and cleanup process may not occur
in the sequence outlined in the following chapters. At
many sites, several activities may be undertaken
concurrently and some steps may reoccur throughout
the process. For example, many technologies that are
used for characterizing sites during the preliminary
phases of a brownfields project may be appropriate
for use in later stages of a site cleanup.
Understanding the logical progression of the process
is crucial to ensuring that the proper groundwork is
laid for future phases, and in determining whether
activities can be combined or implemented
concurrently.
The Road Map is not an official guidance document.
Instead, it draws upon EPA's experiences with
Superf und sites, corrective action sites under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
and Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites. Specific
conditions—such as the kinds and amount of
contamination, the proposed reuses of the property,
the financial resources available, and the level of
support from neighboring communities—vary from
site to site.
New in the Third Edition
• Addition of 72 new resources identified with a
"new resource" icon
• Update of 19 resources
• One-page spotlights on specific topics that
identify and describe key technologies,
processes, and initiatives that affect the use and
consideration of innovative technologies at
brownfields sites
• Significant expansion of Appendix B, List of
Acronyms and Glossary of Key Terms
• An index of resources, listed in alphabetical
order by title
How to Submit Comments
EPA invites comments from the members of the
brownfields community to help ensure that any
future versions of the Road Map meet their needs.
Please submit comments to:
Carlos Pachon
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Innovation Office
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (5102G)
Washington, DC 20460
E-mail: pachon.carlos@epa.gov
Phone: (703) 603-9904
How to Obtain Additional Copies
Portable document format (pdf) and HTML versions of
the Road Map are available for viewing or
downloading from the Hazardous Waste Cleanup
Information (CLU-IN) web site at http://clu-in.org/
roadmap. A printed or hard copy version can also be
ordered directly from CLU-IN.
If you do not have access to the Internet, a printed or
hard copy version of this document can be obtained
from:
National Service Center for
Environmental Publications
U.S. EPA
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (800) 490-9198
FAX: (513)489-8695
When ordering, refer to document number
EPA542-B-01-001.
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 5
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
How to Use the Road Map
The first section, Before You Begin, discusses important factors that set the stage for the characterization
and cleanup of brownfields sites and lists applicable resources. Regulatory guidelines for the process are
introduced, and innovative technologies are discussed within the overall framework of the selection of site
characterization and cleanup technologies.
The remaining four sections of the Road Map summarize the general phases of the characterization
and cleanup of potentially contaminated sites: site assessment, site investigation, assessment of
cleanup options, and design and implementation of the remedy.
Each section describes the objective to be accomplished, outlines the key questions to be answered,
summarizes the activities undertaken during that phase, discusses key questions related to
technology selection, lists information resources available to assist in selecting technologies, and
indicates specific actions to be taken at the completion of the
phase. The resources are grouped by type of resource—
technology resources, site-specific resources, or technology-
specific resources — and are listed in alphabetical order under
each category. Technology resources provide general
information about technologies and their application, site-
specific resources provide information about the application of
innovative technologies to specific contaminants and site types,
and technology-specific resources present detailed information
about specific technologies and the application of those
processes to specific contaminants and media.
• Before You Begin
Collect and Assess Information
About the Brownfields Site
What Do We Need To Know?
How Do We Find The Answers?*
What Technologies Are Available?
Where Do We Go From Here?
• Site Assessment -Site Investigation -Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation
Resources: Components of Each Entry
Title of resource
This icon denotes
resources newly
included in the
third edition.
Data Quality Objective Process for Hazardous
Waste Site Investigations (EPA 600-R-00-007)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The document focuses on the DQO process as the
appropriate systematic planning process to support
decision making. The DQO process is an important tool
for project managers and planners to use in defining the
types, quality, and quantity of data needed to make
defensible decisions. The document is based on the
principles and steps developed in Guidance for the Data
Quality Objectives Process, but is specific to investigations
of hazardous waste sites. The guidance is also consistent
with Data Quality Objectives Process for Superfund:
Interim Final Guidance (EPA 1993) and Soil Screening
Guidance: User's Guide (EPA 1996). Although the
document focuses on EPA applications, the guidance also
is applicable to programs at the state and local levels.
Publication number
i Location at which
the resource is
available
— Description
of the
resource
-------
HAP TO FOR AND
The Road Map is intended to identify and answer questions related to the selection of technologies, rather than
those questions related to other brownfields issues. Please remember that the key questions and activities to be
conducted are intended to guide the reader in identifying issues that should be addressed. To serve as guideposts
in the cleanup process, the questions take the point of view of the various groups involved in that process. They ask
what stakeholders as a group working together—the "we" of each question—must do as assessment and cleanup
progresses.
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS AT
BROWNFIELDS SITES
Spotlights
New to this edition are one-page descriptions that "spotlight"
key issues related to the characterization and cleanup of
brownfields sites, including key technologies, processes, and
initiatives that affect the use and consideration of innovative
technologies at brownfields sites. The spotlights are included
in the section of the Road Map that is most relevant to each
application. Each spotlight also includes information about additional resources, as appropriate. The topics of
the spotlights are:
"Other Redevelopment Initiatives"
"Mothballed Properties"
"Keys to Technology Selection and Acceptance"
"The Triad Approach"
"Data Quality and Representativeness"
"State Drycleaner Remediation Programs"
"Remediating Manufactured Gas Plant Sites"
"Underground Storage Tanks at Brownfields Sites"
"Phytoremediation Technology"
"Cleanup of Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids"
"Understanding the Role of Institutional Controls at
Brownfields Sites"
Appendices
Several appendices also are included to help stakeholders understand technical issues and terms related to cleanup.
Appendix A, Guide to Contaminants and Technologies, identifies activities that may have caused contamination at sites
being considered for redevelopment and the range of technologies that may be appropriate for use at brownfields
sites. Appendix B, List of Acronyms and Glossary of Key Terms, defines specialized terms and acronyms used in
discussing and describing brownfields cleanup efforts. Appendix C, List of Brownfields and Technical Support Contacts,
provides information about state and EPA regional and technical points of contact. Appendix D, How to Order
Documents, provides information about ordering the documents listed in the Road Map.
Index of Resources
The Index of Resources provides a complete list of the resources in the Road Map, sorted alphabetically by title.
Road Map CD-ROM
The Road Map CD-ROM is included with this document. The CD-ROM is organized
by the same sections as the Road Map — "Before You Begin," "Site Assessment,"
"Site Investigation," "Cleanup Options," and "Cleanup Design and
Implementation." Each of the resources identified in the Road Map can be
viewed or downloaded directly from the CD-ROM or accessed or ordered on
line using links provided on the CD-ROM. In addition, of the approximately
160 resources identified in the Road Map, approximately 60 percent can be
viewed or downloaded directly from the CD-ROM. Another 40 percent of the
resources are Internet sites that can be linked to directly from the CD-ROM.
The resources can be searched alphabetically by title and by section.
EPA TIO has provided these resources in an easy-to-use CD-ROM format to
facilitate access to the documents, as well as to reduce paper and costs associated
with printing and distribution of hard-copy publications.
«Background • Introduction • Before You Begin * Site Assessment • Site Investigation * Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 7
-------
MAP TO FOR AND
BEFORE YOU BEGIN
What is the Planned End Use? A Word About
Redevelopment
It is important to consider potential redevelopment
plans from the outset of any brownfields project. The
redevelopment plan (or lack thereof) will govern most
brownfields projects, from the identification of site
investigation and cleanup standards and the ability to
obtain financing to the ultimate affordability or
profitability of the project.
Defining and understanding the overall long-term
goals of the brownfields project and the decisions
to be made throughout the project in support
of those goals is a crucial element in
identifying appropriate technologies for site
investigation and cleanup. Technology
tools, when carefully selected, will assist
those responsible for the brownfields
project in collecting the data necessary to
support such decisions and accomplish the
established goals. During the many phases
of a brownfields project, it is important to
keep in mind that technology options are an
effective means of achieving the desired result
at a site, rather than an end in themselves.
Brownfields projects may be initiated for a number of
reasons. A landowner may want to sell a property to
a developer who wants to purchase and develop it. A
municipality may want to clean up a parcel or area
that has become an eyesore, create space for business
development, or create a park in a disadvantaged
area. A local comprehensive plan may call for infill
development of a certain type in a brownfields area.
The brownfields process will be tailored to the
specific end use, if that use is known. For example, if
the redevelopment plan calls for the construction of a
light industrial facility, it may be appropriate to apply
industrial investigation and cleanup standards that
are less stringent than those applicable to property
that is to be redeveloped for residential use. The
standards required will affect every aspect of the
project, from its overall cost (which is generally
greater as the standards become more conservative) to
the applicability of innovative characterization and
cleanup technologies. Keep in mind, however, that
new information about contamination or cleanup
may require that reuse plans be altered; develop
flexible plans so that revised cleanup needs can be
incorporated into them.
If the end use is not known at the beginning of the
project, the individuals involved should make every
attempt at least to identify the general type of desired
development, whether industrial, commercial, or
residential or a mixed-use development of some sort.
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Absent that information, the most conservative
assumptions will be made at every stage of the
brownfields project, a circumstance that could increase
significantly the time and expense of the project and
may even make it inf easible.
Understanding Regulations and Regulatory
Guidelines and Standard Industry Practices
The redevelopment of brownfields sites maybe
subject to a variety of federal, state, and local laws,
regulations, policies, and guidelines with respect to
the characterization and cleanup of the site. Such
sites also may be governed by the standard practices
of other government, nongovernment, and private
institutions.
The applicable laws, regulations, policies, and
guidelines will vary by site, depending on the
regulatory authority that manages the cleanup.
Therefore, it is important to research this information at
the outset and to work closely with the regulatory
authority throughout the cleanup process. For
example, state or local regulatory authorities may
manage the cleanup of brownfields sites. These
agencies should be consulted to determine what, if any,
site-specific requirements or permits are applicable.
Many of the standard practices are designed to help
the brownfields redevelopment project obtain
financing from public programs and private banks and
institutions. Guidance and standards are issued by
government and nongovernment organizations, such
as the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC), and state and local economic development
authorities, and even private lenders.
EPA also can be a valuable resource for brownfields
stakeholders by providing regulatory and policy
support to facilitate the selection of technologies (see
Appendix C, List of Brownfields and Technical Support
Contacts for information about EPA regional and
technical points of contact).
Although compliance with regulations and official
policy directives under other federal regulatory and
cleanup programs, such as Superf und, may not be
required, some of the information gathered and lessons
learned under such programs may be useful in the
investigation and cleanup of brownfields sites. For
example, in the past, a number of sampling events and
field mobilizations have been required at many RCRA
and Superf und sites to gather sufficient information to
characterize the site adequately. Additional sampling
has been found necessary for a number of reasons —
for example, to ensure that sampling was performed
for all potential contaminants, to adequately analyze
all pathways of exposure, to obtain representative
samples of wastes and environmental media, and to
obtain analytical results of the appropriate accuracy to
enable regulatory authorities to make decisions about
the cleanup with confidence. Multiple sampling
events have increased costs and extended the decision-
making period for selecting options for site cleanups.
When possible, sampling plans should be flexible and
dynamic and should allow for adjustments in the field
in light of actual field conditions observed and the
analytical results. Such a dynamic approach usually
requires a well-rounded technical team that comprises
a broad range of technical expertise and the use of field
analytical technologies, including an on-site mobile
laboratory, to provide quick turnaround analyses.
Seeking and Procuring External Professional
Support
Most decision makers at brownfields sites will require
technical and legal assistance to fully understand the
complexities of investigating and cleaning up a
contaminated site. Depending upon the complexity of
a particular site, decision makers may request the
assistance of environmental consultants, cleanup
contractors, technology vendors, or staff of analytical
laboratories in performing the many activities required
to investigate and clean up sites. The inclusion of
these professionals and other experts as members of
the brownfields team is recommended.
Some states may require the participation of certified
or licensed professionals to help guide the site
investigation and cleanup process. To obtain the
services of such professionals (individuals or a firm),
a request for proposals (RFP) is often used as the
procurement mechanism. The RFP addresses
approach, qualifications, and cost estimate for the
services requested and includes specifications that
encourage prospective bidders to think "outside the
box" and consider nontraditional approaches.
Selection criteria outlined in the RFP should include
credentials and demonstrated experience of the
individuals or firm in developing valid options for
using streamlined strategies and innovative
technologies at brownfields sites and successfully
implementing the selected option.
To ensure that those individuals or firms responding to
an RFP propose approaches that are valid for the site,
the RFP also should include, or make readily available,
all studies and reports that provide site-specific
information that can be used as the basis for making
technology decisions. Individuals preparing RFPs
may wish to be proactive and provide suggestions for
the use of specific strategies and technologies that
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 9
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
appear to be valid for the particular site. When
reviewing proposals and interviewing firms, the
evaluation team must be prepared to ask pointed,
detailed questions about the selection and use of
technologies to be assured that the individual or firm
chosen to perform the work is qualified to complete the
project successfully. Described in this Road Map are
many excellent resources that will assist brownfields
decision makers in preparing specifications to be
included in RFPs, selecting the criteria for evaluating
proposals, and developing questions for interviews of
those responding to the RFP. For example, see EPA's
Brownfields Technology Primer: Requesting and
Evaluating Proposals That Encourage Innovative
Technologies for Investigation and Cleanup on page 29
for more information.
Community Involvement
It is important that brownfields decision makers
encourage acceptance of redevelopment plans and
cleanup alternatives by involving members of the
community early in the decision-making process
through community meetings, newsletters, or other
outreach activities. For an individual site, the
community should be informed about how the use of
a proposed technology might affect redevelopment
plans or the adjacent neighborhood. For example, the
planting of trees for the use of phytoremediation may
create aesthetic or visual improvements; on the other
hand, the use of phytoremediation may bring about
issues related to site security or long-term
maintenance that could affect access to the site.
EPA can assist members of the brownfields
community by directing its members to appropriate
resources and providing opportunities to network
and participate in the sharing of information. A
number of Internet sites, databases, newsletters, and
reports provide opportunities for brownfields
stakeholders to network with other stakeholders to
identify information about cleanup and technology
options. As noted in the preceding section, EPA's
Brownfields Technology Support Center is a valuable
new resource for brownfields decision makers (see
page 11 for more information).
Comparing Innovative Technologies to Other
Characterization and Cleanup Options
In addition to innovative site characterization and
cleanup technologies, the use of established treatment
and containment technologies also should be
considered. Examples of containment include
containing contaminated soil on site using a cap and
limiting migration of contaminants using a vertical
engineering barrier such as a slurry wall. In either
case, containment does not involve actively treating
the waste to recover or degrade contaminants.
Examples of established technologies include
solidification/stabilization, soil vapor extraction,
thermal desorption, incineration, and pump-and-
treat. (For a complete list and description of the
technologies, see Appendix F, Identification of
Remedy and Record of Decision Types for Superfund
Remedial Actions, of the Treatment Technologies for Site
Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition). The
document is available on the Road Map CD-ROM or
online at http://clu-in.org/asr/.)
When deciding between innovative and established
technologies or between treatment and containment
technologies, or other options, brownfields
stakeholders should consider the specific needs of the
individual site and stakeholders. It also is important
that brownfields decision makers consider both the
current effects of the selected technology approach and
its future effects on potential development of the site.
Selecting and Accepting Technologies
A Quick Look
Focus on the decisions
that support site goals
Build consensus
Understand the technology
Allow flexibility
The successful cleanup of
a brownfields site depends
on the selection and
acceptance of a specific
technology or technology
approach. Identified in
the box below are the key
elements to ensure that a
proposed technology will
be accepted by all stakeholders, whether site owners,
potential buyers, financial service providers,
investors, regulators, or affected citizens. Spotlight 3,
Keys to Technology Selection and Acceptance, on page 38,
describes in detail these key elements.
Information Centers, Training, and Other
Resources
Described on the next four pages are some of the
resources available to brownfields projects from
government and nongovernment institutions,
including the various EPA hotlines for statutory and
regulatory programs that may affect brownfields
projects. The resources provide more general
information than the technology resources identified
in the chapters that follow. Training courses and
programs provided by EPA, as well as other
organizations, also are identified. Information about
state and local resources can be obtained from the
contact for each state listed in Appendix C, List of
Brownfields and Technical Support Contacts.
10
-------
MAP TO TECHNOLOGY FOR AND
INFORMATION CENTERS.TRAINING. ANDOTHERRESOURCES
Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 1998 Update
The document, prepared by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) in association with EPA, provides an analytical overview of
state Superfund programs, and includes information about statutes, program staffing and organization, sites, cleanup
activities, cleanup policies and standards, requirements for public participation, funding and expenditures, and enforcement
tools. The report also discusses the voluntary remediation and brownfields programs established by the states and
presents detailed program information arranged in tables that facilitate comparisons among the states. A copy of the report
can be downloaded from ELI's web site at www.eli.org; select "Publications", then 1998 Reports. An update of the report is
forthcoming in Fall 2001.
Breaking Barriers to the Use of Innovative Technologies: State Regulatory Role in Unexploded
Ordnance Detection and Characterization Technology Selection
The report, published in 2000 by the Interstate Technology Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC), contains an analysis of
case studies from states having experience in remediating unexploded ordnance (UXO)-contaminated sites. The
report supports early and meaningful state regulatory involvement in the selection of innovative UXO
characterization and remediation technologies. The report also offers recommendations to ensure the appropriate
participation of states in the selection of technologies for characterizing and remediating UXO-contaminated sites. The
document can be viewed or downloaded from the Road Map CD-ROM.
Brownfields Technology Support Center
EPA established the Brownfields Technology Support Center (BTSC) to ensure that brownfields decision makers are aware
of the full range of technologies available for conducting site assessments and cleanup, and can make informed decisions
for their sites. The center helps government decision makers evaluate strategies to streamline the site assessment and
cleanup process, identify and review information about complex technology options, evaluate contractor capabilities and
recommendations, explain complex technologies to communities, and plan technology demonstrations. The center is
coordinated through EPA's TIO and works through EPA's ORD laboratories. Localities can submit requests for assistance:
- Directly through their EPA Regional Brownfields Coordinator
- Online athttp://brownfieldstsc.org
- By calling 1(877) 838-7220 (toll free)
For more information about the program, contact Dan Powell of EPA's TIO at (703) 603-7196 orpowell.dan@epa.gov.
Brownfields: A Comprehensive Guide to Redeveloping Contaminated Property
This book, published by the American Bar Association (ABA), is aimed at an audience of real estate and environmental
attorneys, property owners and developers, environmental regulators and consultants, and state and local government
leaders. The book provides an overview with background information about the issues and explanations of the federal and
state laws governing brownfields. Legal, business, financial, and political issues associated with redeveloping
contaminated property also are addressed. The book presents the scientific concepts used to clean up contaminated
property, describing risk assessment and remediation strategies. Comprehensive information about state voluntary cleanup
programs, with more than 400 pages of information on existing programs, also is provided. The book, published in 1997,
can be purchased through ABA's web site at www. abanet.org or at bookstores across the country. The ISBN number for the
bookis 1-57073-439-9.
CLU-IN Studio
CLU-IN Studio, coordinated by EPA's TIO, the ITRC, and other partners, provides free and unlimited access to
technical internet seminars, live conference webcasts, and videotapes. Frequently updated, the three types of
media provide information about and resources relevant to innovative site characterization and cleanup
technologies. The two-hour internet seminars are live web-based slide presentations, each of which has a
companion audio portion available by telephone line or RealAudio simulcast. The conference webcasts are live events that
combine web-based presentation materials with a companion live audio stream. The videotapes, of which the viewing time
ranges from 6 to 28 minutes, also may be viewed or ordered on line. Descriptions and registration information about
upcoming events, as well as links to archived seminars and webcasts, are provided at the site at http://clu-in.org/studio/.
' * • Before You Begin • Site • Site • Cleanup • Cleanup Design and 11
-------
MAP TO FOR AND
INFORMATION CENTERS. TRAINING. AND OTHER RESOURCES
EPA Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative Internet Site
This Internet site, coordinated by EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Outreach and Special
Projects Staff (OSPS), provides extensive information about EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative and
resources related to the initiative. Descriptions of EPA's brownfields pilots and points of contact in each of the EPA regional
offices are provided, as well as publications, regulations, and other documents. Brownfields stakeholders involved in the
selection and use of technologies for environmental cleanup may have particular interest in learning more about EPA's
Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) Pilots, a program that includes, among other elements, funding of
assessment demonstration pilot programs forthe assessment of brownfields properties and testing of cleanup and
redevelopment models. Specific details about the program, including criteria for eligibility and a list of BCRLF pilots that
have been awarded, are available on the web site. The USTFields Initiative, a new program sponsored by EPA's Office of
Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) to address cleanup of abandoned underground storage tanks (USTs) is described, as
well as the 10 communities recently awarded USTFields funding forthe assessment and cleanup of sites. For additional
information, visit the web site at www.epa.gov/brownfields.
Guidance for Preparing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) (EPA 240-B-01-004)
The document provides guidance on the preparation and use of an SOP within a quality system. An SOP is a set
of written instructions that document a routine or repetitive activity an organization carries out. The development
and use of SOPs are an integral part of a successful quality system because SOPs provide to individuals the
information needed to perform a job properly and facilitate consistency in the quality and integrity of a product or
end result. SOPs describe both technical and administrative operational elements of an organization that would be managed
under a work plan, a quality assurance project plan, or an organization's quality management plan. A copy of the document
can be viewed or downloaded from the Road Map CD-ROM.
Handbook of Tools for Managing Federal Superfund Liability Risks at Brownfields and Other Sites
(EPA 330-B-98-001)
Developed by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance (OECA), the handbook is a compilation of
tools that can be used to evaluate the benefits of remediating and redeveloping a brownfields property against
any environmental risks associated with that property and to address barriers arising from potential liability
under Superfund. The document presents background information about CERCLA and summarizes various statutory
provisions and agency regulations, policies, and guidance documents that can be used as tools to manage CERCLA liability
risks associated with brownfields and other sites. Designed for use by parties involved in the assessment, cleanup, and
reuse of brownfields, the handbook provides a basic description of the purpose, applicability, and provisions of each tool.
The pdf version of the document can be viewed or downloaded from the Road Map CD-ROM.
Hazardous Substance Research Centers
The Hazardous Substance Research Centers (HSRC) is a national organization, funded in part by EPA, the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE), and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), that carries out a program of basic and applied research,
technology transfer, and training. HSRC provides free technical assistance to communities with environmental
contamination issues through two outreach efforts, the Technical Outreach for Communities (TOSC) Program and the
Technical Assistance to Brownfields (TAB) Communities Program. TOSC uses the researchers and professionals at more
than 30 universities to help community groups understand the technical issues at hazardous waste sites. Through the TOSC
program, toll-free information hotlines are available and workshops and other educational programs are offered. TAB helps
communities to clean up and redevelop properties that have been damaged or undervalued by environmental contamination.
Through five regional training centers, HSRC's TAB provides training for communities on the following subjects: leadership,
risk assessment, brownfields processes, site assessment, and cleanup alternatives. More information is available on
HSRC and their brownfields initiatives on their web site at www.hsrc.org. Detailed information about the TOSC and TAB
programs is available at www.hsrc.org/hsrc/html/tosc.
12
-------
MAP TO TECHNOLOGY FOR AND
INFORMATION CENTERS.TRAINING. ANDOTHERRESOURCES
Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste Center of Expertise
Coordinated through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste Center of Expertise
(HTRW-CX) provides technical assistance and information about the use of innovative technologiesforcleanup of
contaminated properties. Detailed information about a variety of available innovative technology resources, points of contact
at the HTRW-CX, and upcoming training courses and workshops is provided on the Center's web site. More than 50 case
studies of successful applications of innovative technologies also are described. Visit the HTRW-CX web site at
www.environmental.usace.army.mil/info/technical/it/it.hfm//for more information.
Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation
The ITRC, created through the Western Governors Association, promotes the use of innovative hazardous waste and
remediation technologies. Made up of more than 30 states, several federal partners, stakeholders, and state associations,
the ITRC: (1) provides a forum through which states can exchange technical information; (2) creates a network of state
contacts forthe promotion of innovative technologies; (3) identifies interstate barriers to the deployment of technologies; (4)
benchmarks state perspectives about innovative technologies; and (5) develops consensus among state regulators, in
collaboration with industry and public stakeholders, on technical regulatory aspects of the use of innovative technologies.
Brownfields decision makers who wish to obtain applicable guidance documents forthe use of innovative technologies will
find several guidance documents developed by the ITRC on ITRC's web site. For additional resources and points of contact,
visit the ITRC's web site at www.ITRCweb.org/.
RCRA Online
RCRA Online is an online database that provides users access to thousands of letters, memoranda, and
questions and answers issued by EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW). The documents indexed in the database
represent past EPA Headquarters interpretations of the RCRA regulations governing the management of solid,
hazardous, and medical waste. Users can retrieve documents through topical, full text, and advanced search
functions, as well as view the actual text of documents identified in a search. Detailed instructions on how to use the
database are provided, as well as tips for conducting searches. RCRA Online is available online at www.epa.gov/rcraonline/.
A pdf version of the RCRA Online brochure is provided on the Road Map CD-ROM.
RCRA, Superfund, and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Hotline
The hotline handles information about EPA's RCRA regulations and programs implemented under RCRA, including the UST
program, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), EPCRA, the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III, and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). The hotline also provides referrals for
obtaining related documents concerning the RCRA, UST, Superfund/CERCLA, and Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization
programs. The hotline operates daily Mondaythrough Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). The
hotline can be reached by telephone at 800-424-9346 for all nongovernment locations outside the Washington, DC
metropolitan local calling area, or 703-412-9810 for all locations in the Washington, DC metropolitan local calling area.
Superfund Docket and Information Center
The Superfund Docket and Information Center provides access to Superfund regulatory documents, Superfund Federal Register
Notices, Records of Decision (ROD), and public comments sent to EPA. The center operates daily, Mondaythrough Friday, 9:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST. The centercan be reached bytelephone at703-603-9232 or by facsimile at 703-603-9240.
Tax Credits and Deductions for Expensing Environmental Remediation Costs (Section 198)
Section 198 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §198 (A)(1 )(B)(VI)) describesthe expensing of costs related
to the environmental remediation of qualified contaminated sites. As the code specifies, taxpayers are permitted
to treat any qualified environmental remediation expense as an expense that is not chargeable to capital account;
such an expenditure can be treated as a deduction forthe taxable year in which it is paid or incurred. In general, a
qualified remediation expenditure is an expenditure paid or incurred in connection with the abatement or control of
hazardous substances at a qualified contaminated site. The specific terms and qualifications are described in Section 198 of
the Internal Revenue Code, which can be viewed or downloaded from the Road Map CD-ROM.
• • • Before You Begin • Site • Site • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and 13
-------
MAP TO FOR AND
INFORMATION CENTERS. TRAINING. AND OTHER RESOURCES
TechDirect
TechDirect, hosted by EPA'sTIO, is a free electronic mail service that highlights new publications and events of interest to
site assessment and remediation professionals. The message directs subscribers to sources from which they can obtain
more information. Interested persons may subscribe on line aUittp://clu-in.org/techdrct.
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Assistance Information Service
The information service provides information about regulations under TSCA to the chemical industry, labor and trade
organizations, environmental groups, and the general public. Technical as well as general information is available. The
information service operates daily, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST. The information service can be
reached bytelephoneat202-554-1404, by facsimile at202-554-5603,orby e-mail aUsca-hotline@epa.gov.
Training Information
Training courses and programs that can be useful to brownfields stakeholders, particularly those involved in technology
selection, are identified below:
• EPA's Training-Exchange (TRAINEX), an Internet site that provides a range of training information for representatives of
federal, state, local, and tribal agencies, is intended primarily for individuals involved in hazardous waste management
and remediation. The site provides information about more than 65 classes, as well as schedules fortheir delivery.
Visit the TRAINEX web site at www.trainex.org for additional information.
• EPA's Field-Based Technologies Training Program is particularly appropriate for individuals involved in selecting
technologies for site investigation and cleanup. The Field-Based Technologies Training Program consists of two
advanced-level training courses - the Field-Based Site Characterization Technologies Course, which introduces a wide
array of characterization technologies and the Strategies for Field-Based Analytical and Sampling Technologies Course,
which provides an overview of the planning and process issues associated with the use of field-based strategies. The
course is designed for environmental professionals and regulators who are involved in the use or implementation of site
characterization or data interpretation related to those technologies. For information about the course and schedule for its
delivery, visit the TRAINEX web site alwww.trainex.org; select "CERCLA Education Center (CEC)."
• Information about upcoming courses, provided by a variety of federal and non-federal organizations, is provided on TIO's
CLU-IN web site athttp://clu-in.org; select "Courses and Conferences" under "What's Hot? What's New?
• American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) also offers many technical and professional training opportunities which
may be of interest to brownfields decision makers. For more information, visit their web site at www.astm.org/TRAIN.
14
-------
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
SITE ASSESSMENT
Collect and Assess Information
About the Brownfields Site
The purpose of this step is to evaluate the potential
for contamination at a particular site by collecting
and reviewing existing information. The site
assessment, typically referred to as an ASTM Phase I
environmental site assessment, is an initial
investigation usually limited to a search of historical
records. The data collected also includes information
about past and current environmental conditions and
historical uses of the site. The site assessment is the
most crucial step in the brownfields process, because
any further environmental investigation and cleanup
will hinge on whether potential environmental
concerns are identified during that phase.
During the site assessment phase, it is important to
consider the activities and requirements described in
the subsequent chapters and determine how they will
be affected by the initial site assessment. Because the
information obtained in this phase will determine
whether any future work must be done at the site, the
site assessment must be thorough and tailored to meet
specific data objectives. As discussed in the section
Before You Begin, decisions made about the end use
of a site and the long-term goals of the brownfields
project will determine the types and quantity of data
that must be collected, as well as the level of quality
the data must attain. The data quality objectives
(DQO), in turn, will serve as the basis upon which the
best decisions will be made about the most
appropriate technologies and techniques to be used in
collecting and analyzing the data at a particular site
(see Appendix B, List of Acronyms and Glossary of Key
Terms, for a definition of DQO).
The data collected during this initial step of the
cleanup process is extremely important for use in
identifying and evaluating the applicability of site
assessment and cleanup technologies, as well as in
determining whether the property can be cleaned up
to the level necessary for its intended reuse. If it is
carefully planned, some of the follow-on work, such
as limited sampling, may also be accomplished
during this phase. The site assessment also can
provide a preliminary indication of what types of
cleanup technologies might be available. It also is
essential to assess and address the needs and
concerns of the community (for example, the
development of social and economic profiles and the
identification of acceptable environmental risk).
Technologies that detect possible contamination in the
air may be applicable at this stage as well as some
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 17
-------
MAP TO TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR INVESTIGATION AND
analytical sampling technologies useful for assessing
contamination in soil or groundwater. Examples of
sampling and analysis technologies that may be
applicable during this phase are presented in
Appendix A, TaUeA-2, Technologies for Sampling and
Analyzing Contaminants Found at Typical Brownfields
Sites. However, the use of technologies may be
somewhat limited, since much of the work at this stage
involves a search of paper and electronic records.
What Do We Need To Know?
Factors that should be considered during this phase
include:
1. Has a redevelopment plan been prepared or a
proposed end use identified? Is the site located in
an area targeted for redevelopment? Is the site
located in an industrial area? Will it remain
industrial or be rezoned for commercial use? Or is
a residential development planned? Will
community members who use the property be
exposed directly to the soil or sediment?
2. What data are needed to support the long-term
goals of the project, address concerns related to it,
and ensure its acceptability? What decisions need
to be made, and what data should be collected to
support those decisions? What level of quality or
uncertainty is necessary to meet those goals?
3. What is known about the site? What records exist
that indicate potential contamination and past
use of the property? Have other environmental
actions occurred (such as notices of violation)?
Has an environmental audit been conducted?
What information is needed to identify the types
and extent or the absence of contamination?
4. If the site is located in an area targeted for
redevelopment, is the site being considered for
cleanup under a federal or state Superfund
cleanup initiative?
5. Will the site be entered into a Voluntary Cleanup
Program (VCP)? If not, what agency (federal,
state, local, or tribal) would be responsible for
managing oversight of cleanup? Are there other
federal, state, local, or tribal regulatory
requirements for site assessment? (See the
definition of a VCP in Appendix B, List of
Acronyms and Glossary of Key Terms)
6. What are the special needs and concerns of the
community? How can community involvement
be encouraged? How will community views be
solicited?
7. What environmental conditions will the
community find acceptable? What environmental
8.
standards should be considered to ensure that
community stakeholders are satisfied with the
outcome of the cleanup, in light of the identified
and proposed reuse?
If the site shows evidence of contamination, who
and what will be affected? Who will pay for the
cleanup?
The following figure depicts the linkages among the
decisions to be made, the data to be collected, and the
selection of technologies to expedite the collection of
data.
Lir
->
king the Decision, Data, and Technologies
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
Determine:
What you are trying to accomplish at the site -
redevelopment, cleanup, etc.
±
WHAT DECISIONS ARE NEEDED TO SUPPORT
SITE GOALS?
Determine:
Are contaminant levels above or belowacceptable
limits to a specified degree of certainty?
+
WHA T INFORMA TION DO 1 NEED TO MAKE
THE DECISION?
Identify:
Data or information necessary to make the decision(s)
oranswerthequestion(s)
Consider:
Level of data quality required (detection limits and
accuracy)
+
HOW SHOULD 1 COLLECT THE DATA?
Evaluates. Select:
Various sampling and analysis designs to achieve
required data and data quality
Consider:
Technologies available to provide more data quickly and
cost-effectively at a level of quality required by decisions
4
WHAT DOES THE DATA TELL ME?
Evaluate/Interpret Data:
Can decision(s) be made?
Can question(s) be answered?
1 1
NO YES
i
TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION
Based on the decision made or question answered.
18
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
How Do We Find The Answers?*
Activities to be conducted during the initial survey of
a site include:
• Establish the technical team and take advantage of the
team's expertise to determine the adequacy of existing
site information and identify potential data gaps
• Ensure that the brownfields decision makers (such
as regulators; citizens; property owners; and
technical staff, such as chemists and toxicologists)
are involved in the decision-making process
• Identify future plans for reuse and redevelopment
and goals of the site
• Identify data that must be collected to support the
goals of the site
• Determine whether contamination is likely through
the conduct of an ASTM Phase I environmental site
assessment or its equivalent. A records search is
performed and the site is visited, but no sampling of
soil or groundwater occurs. The effort includes the
following activities:
- Identify past owners and the uses they made of
the property by conducting a title search and
reviewing tax documents, sewer maps, aerial
photographs, and fire, policy, and health
department documentation related to the property
- Review and analyze city government and other
historical records to identify past use or disposal
of hazardous or other waste materials at the site
- Review federal and state lists that identify sites
that may have environmental contamination;
such lists include, but are not limited to:
1) EPA's Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) of potentially
contaminated sites, 2) the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) of
permits issued for discharges into surface water,
and 3) state records of "emergency removal"
actions (for example, the removal of leaking
drums or the excavation of explosive waste)
- Interview property owners, occupants, and others
associated with the site, such as previous
employees, residents, and local planners
- Perform a physical or visual examination of the
site, including examination of existing
structures for structural integrity and asbestos-
containing material
- Test for the presence of various contaminants; for
example, lead-based paint, asbestos, and radon in
structures
Review the applicability of government oversight
programs:
- Determine whether there is a state VCP and consult
with the appropriate federal, state, local, and tribal
regulatory agencies to include them in the decision-
making process as early as possible
- Determine the approach (such as redevelopment
programs, the Superfund program, property
transfer laws, or a state brownfields program) that
is required or available to facilitate the cleanup of
sites (see the section, Before You Begin, for an
overview of applicable regulations and regulatory
guidelines)
- Identify whether economic incentives, such as
benefits from state brownfields programs, or federal
brownfields tax credits, can be obtained
- Contact the EPA regional brownfields coordinator
to identify and determine the availability of EPA
support programs and federal financial incentives
(see Appendix C, List of Brownfields and
Technical Support Contacts)
Determine how to incorporate and encourage
community participation:
- Identify regulatory requirements for public
involvement (see page 13 in the section, Before
You Begin, for a description of community
services provided by HSRC)
- Assess community interest in the project
- Identify community-based organizations
- Review any community plans for redevelopment
Identify factors that may impede redevelopment
and reuse
Begin identifying potential sources for funding site
investigation and cleanup activities at the site, if
necessary
Examine unacceptable environmental conditions
in terms of initial costs for site improvement and
long-term costs for operation and maintenance —
* Please note that the Road Map seeks to answer technology selection questions and is not intended to provide a response to each
procedural question identified.
* Background • Introduction • Before You • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 19
-------
MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
include potential cleanup options and constraints
that may affect redevelopment, such as project
schedules, cost, and potential for achieving the
desired reuse
• Conduct work at the site and collect data as
necessary to define site conditions or to resolve
uncertainties related to the site
Where Do We Find Help To Our
Technology Questions?
Examples of technology resources that are available to
assist in assessing a site are listed below. Although
many of the resources are more applicable in later
stages, it may be useful to begin thinking now about
options and tools for investigation and cleanup.
Information about the availability of electronic resources
—whether the item is found on the Road Map's
accompanying CD-ROM, or on various web sites —
also is provided. Appendix D, How to Order Documents,
provides complete ordering information for documents
that are not available on the CD-ROM or on the Internet.
A. Resources for Site Assessment
The documents listed below are resources that provide
general information about the availability of technology
resources in the form ofbibliographies, status reports, and
user guidelines.
Assessing Contractor Capabilities for Streamlined
Site Investigations (EPA 542-R-00-001)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
Developed by EPA's BTSC, the resource will assist
decision makers on brownfields projects in evaluating
the capabilities of contractors who are being
considered to perform work in support of site
investigations. The resource also identifies potential
activities that contractors can perform to enhance the
site investigation process through innovative
approaches. A comprehensive series of questions that
decision makers can use in interviewing contractors
and evaluating those contractors' qualifications is
presented, followed by information about the relevance
of the questions and potential answers to them.
ASTM Standard Guide for Process of Sustainable
Brownfields Development (E1984-98)
Order online at www.astm.org
The guide, developed by ASTM, discusses the
redevelopment of a brownfields property for all
stakeholders. It identifies impediments to such
redevelopment and suggests solutions that can facilitate
completion of a successful project. It describes the
flexible process of sustainable brownfields
redevelopment that actively engages property owners,
developers, government agencies, and the community in
conducting corrective action, economic evaluation, and
other efforts that promote the long-term productive reuse
of a brownfields property. The guide, available at $35
per copy, can be downloaded from the ASTM web site,
or ordered by telephone at 610-832-9585 or by facsimile
at 610-832-9555.
ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment Process (E1527-00)
Order on lineatwww.astm.org
The purpose of the practice, developed by ASTM, is to
define commercial and customary practices in the U.S.
for conducting Phase I environmental site assessments
of commercial real estate with respect to the range of
contaminants within the scope of CERCLA, as well as
petroleum products. Research and reporting
requirements also are identified. The practice,
available at $40 per copy, can be downloaded from the
ASTM web site or ordered by telephone at 610-832-
9585 or by facsimile at 610-832-9555.
Clean-Up Information Home Page on the World
Wide Web
View on line at http://clu-in.org
The Internet site provides information about innovative
treatment technologies and site characterization
technologies to the hazardous waste remediation
community. CLU-IN describes programs,
organizations, publications, and other tools for EPA
and other federal and state personnel, consulting
engineers, technology developers and vendors,
remediation contractors, researchers, community
groups, and individual citizens. Information about
issues related to site characterization also is provided:
technology verification and evaluation; technology
selection tools; guidance and application support; case
studies; regulatory development; and publications.
Data Quality Objective Process for
Hazardous Waste Site Investigations
(EPA600-R-00-007)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The document focuses on the DQO process as the
appropriate systematic planning process to support
decision making. The DQO process is an important
tool for project managers and planners to use in
defining the types, quality, and quantity of data
needed to make defensible decisions. The document
20
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
is based on the principles and steps developed in
Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, but
is specific to investigations of hazardous waste sites.
The guidance is also consistent with Data Quality
Objectives Process for Superf und: Interim Final
Guidance (EPA 1993) and Soil Screening Guidance:
User's Guide (EPA 1996). Although the document
focuses on EPA applications, the guidance also is
applicable to programs at the state and local levels.
Data Quality Objectives Web Site
Visit on line at www.hanford.gov/dqo/
The DQO web site, sponsored by DOE, is a
helpful resource for those responsible for
preparing a data collection design. The web site
defines the DQO process and explains its role in
ensuring that a data collection activity produces
results of sufficient quality to support decisions based
on those results. The web site provides step-by-step
procedures for the DQO process. It also provides a
decision process flow chart, describes purposes and
goals related to the use of the DQO process, and
reviews relevant DOE and contractor directives. It also
describes a number of available training courses; lists
contacts; and provides glossaries of relevant terms, as
well as links to related sites.
Engineering and Design: Requirements
for the Preparation of Sampling and
Analysis Plans (EM 200-1-3)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
Developed by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, the
manual provides guidance for the preparation of
project-specific sampling and analysis plans (SAP)
for the collection of environmental data. In addition,
the manual presents default sampling and analytical
protocols that may be used verbatim or modified
based in light of the DQOs for a specific project. The
goal of the manual is to promote consistency in the
generation and execution of sampling and analysis
plans and therefore to help investigators generate
chemical data of known quality for the purpose to
which those data are to be used.
EPA REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative
Technologies (REACH IT) Online Searchable
Database
View on lineal www.epareachit.org
The EPA REmediation And CHaracterization
Innovative Technologies (EPA REACH IT) online
searchable database provides users comprehensive,
up-to-date information about more than 150
characterization technologies and 1,300 remediation
technologies. During the preliminary phase of a
brownfields project, EPA REACH IT will assist
brownf ields stakeholders to learn about and become
familiar with the range of available technology
options that can be employed during the investigation
and the cleanup phases that follow, as well as data
about various types of sites. Information about
analytical screening technologies that may be useful
for initial sampling of a site also is provided. EPA
REACH IT is accessible only through the Internet.
Expedited Site Characterization (ESC)
Method (Ames Laboratory Environmental
Technologies Development Program)
View on lineal www.etd.ameslab.gov/etd/
technologies/projects/esc
Demonstrations of the ESC method conducted by Ames
include characterization work performed by
commercial contractors at existing contaminated sites.
The ESC demonstrations include a public information
program of presentations, site tours, exhibits,
information packets, and opportunities for discussion.
Improving Sampling, Analysis, and Data
Management for Site Investigation and
Cleanup (EPA 542-F-01-030A)
View or download pdffile at http://clu-in.org
The document describes the three-pronged
"triad approach" that forms the basis of EPA's
national strategy for site characterization and site
assessment. That streamlined approach to site
assessment focuses on the conduct of systematic
planning to ensure the effective use of resources; the
preparation of a dynamic work plan to support
decision making in the field; and the use of on-site
analytical tools, rapid sampling platforms, and on-
site data interpretation. Following the discussion of
the "triad" approach to site investigation, the
document briefly reviews a number of recent
developments that promise marked benefit to cleanup
efforts and sets forth the agency's vision of defensible
decisions at an affordable cost that is the goal of the
national strategy. The document can be downloaded
from CLU-IN under "Publications." See Spotlight 4,
The Triad Approach, for a more detailed description of
the triad approach.
OnSite OnLine Tools for Site Assessment
View on line at www. epa.gov/athens/onsite/
Developed by EPA's ORD and EPA Region
9, the web site offers a set of online tools
for site assessment, including calculators
for formulas, models, unit conversion factors, and
scientific demonstrations for use in assessing the
effects of contaminants in groundwater.
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 21
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Quality Assurance Guidance for Conducting
Brownfields Site Assessments (EPA 540-R-98-038)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The document informs brownfields site managers
about concepts and issues related to quality
assurance and provides step-by-step instructions for
identifying the type and quality of environmental
data needed to present a clear picture of the
environmental conditions at a given site.
Sensor Technology Information Exchange
(SenTIX)
View on lineatwww.sentix.org
SenTIX serves as a forum to exchange
information about sensor technologies and needs. The
purpose of the web site is to serve as a tool to assist those
working in the environmental field in cleaning up
hazardous waste. The submit and search functions of
SenTIX can help match users looking for a sensor
technology to meet a specific need. The discussion
forum also matches developers, vendors, and users. The
site was developed by WPI, a nonprofit organization,
under a cooperative agreement with EPA.
B. Site-Specific Resources for Site Assessment
Listed below are survey reports and online tools on the
application of innovative technologies to specific
contaminants and site types.
EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance Industry Sector Notebooks
View or download pdffiles on the Road Map CD-ROM
Developed by EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA), the EPA Sector
Notebooks provide extensive profiles of selected major
industries; each profile includes information about
the processes conducted in the industry, chemical
releases and transfers of chemicals, opportunities for
pollution prevention, pertinent federal statutes and
regulations, and compliance initiatives associated
with the sector. Profiles are available on line and in
hard copy for the following industry sectors:
- Aerospace (EPA 310-R-98-001)
- Air transportation (EPA 310-R-97-001)
- Dry cleaning (EPA 310-R-95-001)
- Electronics and computer (EPA 310-R-95-002)
- Fossil fuel electronic power generation
(EPA 310-R-97-007)
- Ground transportation (EPA 3W-R-97-002)
- Inorganic chemical (EPA 310-R-95-004)
- Iron and steel (EPA 3W-R-95-005)
- Lumber and wood products (EPA 3W-R-95-006)
- Metal casting (EPA 3W-R-97-004)
- Metal fabrication (EPA 3W-R-95-007)
- Metal mining (EPA 3W-R-95-008)
- Motor vehicle assembly (EPA 310-R-95-009)
- Nonferrous metals (EPA 3W-R-95-010)
- Non-fuel, non-metal mining (EPA 310-R-95-011)
- Oil and gas extractions (EPA 310-R-99-006)
- Organic chemical (EPA 310-R-95-012)
- Petroleum refining (EPA 310-R-95-013)
- Pharmaceutical (EPA 310-R-97-005)
- Plastic resins and man-made fibers
(EPA310-R-97-006)
- Printing (EPA 310-R-95-014)
- Pulp and paper (EPA 310-R-95-015)
- Rubber and plastic (EPA 310-R-95-016)
- Shipbuilding and repair (EPA 310-R-97-008)
- Stone, clay, glass, and concrete (EPA 310-R-95-017)
- Textiles (EPA 310-R-97-009)
- Transportation equipment cleaning
(EPA310-R-95-018)
- Water transportation (EPA 310-R-97-003)
- Wood furniture and fixtures (EPA 310-R-9 5-003)
EPA Region 3 Industry Profile Fact Sheets
View on line at www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/brownfld/
industry.htm
Developed by EPA Region 3, the fact sheets are
designed to assist in the initial planning and
evaluation of sites that are under consideration for
remediation, redevelopment, or reuse. The fact sheets
provide general descriptions of site conditions and
contaminants commonly found at selected industrial
sites. Each fact sheet provides information about the
processes conducted in the industry; raw materials
characteristic of the industry; environmental media
that could be affected; sampling strategies; and
suggested parameters for analysis. Fact sheets on the
following subjects are available on line:
- Abandoned chemical facilities
- Abandoned laboratories
- Abandoned oil facilities
- Asbestos pile
- Auto body facilities
- Battery reclamation/acuities
- Bethlehem-asbestos/tailing mine
22
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
- Drum recycling facility
- Dye facilities
- Electroplating
- Glass manufacturing facilities
- Gas stations
- Infectious wastes
- Manufactured gas plants/coal tar sites
- Municipal landfill
- Ordnance
- Paint industry
- Pesticide facilities
- Petroleum recycling facility
- Plastics
- Print shops
- Quarry sites
- Radiation
- Rail yard facilities
- Salvage yards
- Scrap metal
- Steel manufacturing-electric arc/coke
- Tanning facility
- Tire fires
- Wood treating facility
Frequently Asked Questions about
Drycleaning (EPA 744-K-98-002)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The EPA fact sheet addresses a number of
issues related to drycleaning, including EPA's
interest in drycleaning, the process of drycleaning,
the human health and environmental risks associated
with chemical solvents used in the drycleaning
process, what drycleaners and the government are
doing to reduce those risks, and other methods of
cleaning clothes. The document lists additional
sources of information about drycleaning and EPA's
Design for the Environment Program.
Ordnance and Explosives Mandatory
Center of Expertise (MCX) and Design
Center
View on line at www. hnd. usace.army. mil/
OEW/
The mission of the Ordnance and Explosives MCX
and Design Center, which is hosted by the U.S. Army
Engineering and Support Center in Huntsville,
Alabama, is to safely eliminate or reduce risks posed
by ordnance, explosives, and recovered chemical
warfare materials at current or formerly used defense
sites. The Internet site provides links to information
about technical requirements for contracting; fact
sheets on ordnance and explosives programs;
frequently asked questions related to ordnance
response actions; innovative technologies,
presentations, and technical papers; and technical
guidance and procedures related to ordnance and
explosives. Points of contact also are identified.
C. Technology-Specific Resources for Site
Assessment
The documents listed below provide detailed information
about specific innovative technologies and the application of
those processes to specific contaminants and media in the
form of engineering analyses, application reports,
technology verification and evaluation reports, and
technology reviews.
Study of Assessment and Remediation
Technologies for Dry cleaner Sites
View on line at www.drycleancoalition. org/tech
Prepared by the State Coalition for
Remediation of Drycleaners (SCRD) with
the support of EPA's TIO, the report presents the
results of the coalition's evaluation of assessment and
remediation technologies commonly used in cleaning
up drycleaner sites. The evaluation was based on the
results of responses to questionnaires sent to entities
involved in such cleanups in 1999. The report
presents those results in detail. An appendix in the
report provides descriptions and brief evaluations of
assessment technologies frequently used at
dry cleaner sites.
Underground Storage Tanks and
Brownfields Sites (EPA 510-F-00-004)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The fact sheet focuses on EPA's
"USTFields" Initiative for addressing brownfields
properties at which redevelopment is complicated by
real or perceived environmental contamination
originating from federally regulated USTs. The fact
sheet describes the 50 pilot projects implemented or to
be implemented under the two phases of the initiative.
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 23
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Where Do We Go From Here?
Hit-ri
Next Steps
After completing an initial assessment and survey of
the environmental conditions at the site, one of the
following courses of action may be taken:
Result of Site Assessment
Course of Action
No apparent
contamination is found
and there is no reason
to suspect other media
are contaminated.
Concerns of
stakeholders have been
addressed adequately.
Discuss results with
appropriate regulatory officials
before proceeding with
redevelopment activities.
Contamination is found
that poses a significant
risk to human health or
the environment.
Contact the appropriate
federal, state, local, or tribal
government agencies
responsible for hazardous
waste. Eased on feedback of
government agency,
determine what cleanup levels
are required for
redevelopment, and proceed to
the SITE INVESTIGATION
phase.
Contamination possibly I
exists.
Proceed to the SITE
INVESTIGATION phase.
Contamination
definitely exists,
BUT no site
investigation has been
conducted.
Proceed to the SITE
INVESTIGATION phase.
Contamination
definitely exists,
AND a site
investigation has been
performed.
Proceed to the SITE
INVESTIGATION phase if
additional investigation is
needed; otherwise, proceed to
the CLEANUP OPTIONS
phase.
24
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
BOTHER REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES:
Reducing Barriers to Redevelopment of Brownfields Sites
The Superfund Redevelopment Initiative (SRI) reflects
EPA's commitment to consider reasonably anticipated
future land uses when making remedy decisions at
Superfund hazardous waste sites. For pilot sites, EPA
provides eligible local governments as much as $100,000
to support assessment and public outreach to help
determine the future use of a site. The agency also
supports a peer matching program that enables local
governments and communities that have reused a
Superfund site to share their experiences with those just
starting the process. Through case studies, fact sheets, an
online database of sites, and an Internet site, EPA is
providing information about reuse options and the
lessons learned through these
projects. EPA is evaluating its
policies and practices to determine
whether changes are needed to
furtherthe effort to reuse sites.
Further, EPA is forming
partnerships with states, local
government agencies, citizen
groups, and other federal
agencies to restore previously
contaminated properties as
valuable assets for communities.
Visit EPA's SRI web site at
www.epa.gov/superfund/
programs/recycle for additional
information.
A Quick Look
The key components of the Superfund
Redevelopment Initiative are: pilots,
policies, partnerships, and promotions
The purpose of the RCRA Brownfields
Initiative is to prevent the creation of
future brownfields and ensure the
successful cleanup and long-term,
sustainable reuse of RCRA facilities.
Recently launched by
EPA, the RCRA
Brownfields Prevention
Targeted Site Efforts
(TSE) Initiative is
intended to focus short-term
attention and support to sites at
which cleanup has been delayed or
slowed and to serve as a catalyst to initiate cleanup at such
sites to prevent them from becoming brownfields sites.
Implemented at the regional level, the TSE program will
apply to sites at which there exists significant potential for
redevelopment and reuse, and that require a limited amount
of EPA support to bring the site to
the next level of cleanup,
consensus, or appropriate closure.
EPA will offer a small amount of
funding to support TSE efforts in
each region. For more information
about the program, contact Sara
Rasmussen, EPA Office of Solid
Waste, at (703) 308-8399.
Under EPA's Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Brownfields Prevention
Initiative, pilot projects are
designed to test approaches that better integrate reuse
considerations into the corrective action cleanup process.
The initiative also addresses concerns that application of
RCRA to cleanup activities at brownfields sites may be
slowing down the progress of cleanup efforts. Although
no grant money is associated with the pilot projects, EPA
has engaged contractors to help find ways to expedite
cleanup at the pilot sites. EPA has selected four pilot
projects that it hopes will illustrate how innovations and
reforms under the RCRA corrective action program can
reduce barriers to the reuse and redevelopment of RCRA
brownfields sites. Additional information about the RCRA
Brownfields Prevention Initiative is provided on line at
www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/rcrabf.htm.
UndertheTSE Initiative, selected
properties will receive concentrated,
short-term supportto prevent such sites
from becoming brownfields sites.
The USTFields Initiative fosters the
cleanup of UST sites.
Sharing of lessons learned can benefit the
BRAC and brownfields programs.
EPA's USTFields Initiative, a new
program undertaken by EPA's
Office of Underground Storage
Tanks (OUST), is focused on how
to improve the cleanup of sites
affected by petroleum
contamination, thereby fostering
the redevelopment of those sites
(see Spotlight 8, Underground
Storage Tanks at Brownfields
Sites, for more information about
the USTFields Initiative). Additional details about the
program also are available on line at www.epa.gov/
swerustl/ustfield/.
Many aspects of the Department of Defense's (DoD) Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Program and EPA's
brownfields program are similar. Significant issues
common to both BRAC and brownfields include eliminating
disincentives and providing assurances to developers and
financiers, considering future land use in cleanup decisions,
and implementing institutional controls. Because federal
facilities and brownfields cleanups can have similar effects
on communities, EPA and DoD are exploring methods of
coordinating BRAC and brownfields activities. Visit the
BRAC Internet site at www.dtic.mil/envirodod/brac/iof
online access to policies and initiatives, publications, and
points of contact.
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 25
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
MOTHBALLED PROPERTIES:
Unlocking Sites with Innovative Technologies
Many mothballed properties are owned by railroad,
petroleum, petrochemical, and utility corporations and
are located in the Northeast and Midwest in areas where
the economy has shifted away from industrial operations.
Formerly used for manufacturing and other industrial
uses, mothballed sites are properties which have been
left idle or "mothballed" by the site owner. A study
conducted by Rutgers University in New Jersey found at
least one mothballed brownfields site present in almost
40 percent of the 60 New Jersey cities analyzed;
approximately half of these municipalities consider that
site to be a serious detriment to urban redevelopment
because they often interfere with larger redevelopment
plans.
For owners of mothballed sites,
innovative technologies offer
options for assessment and
cleanup that provide more
certainty in determining the full
extent of contamination and in
estimating the costs and time
frames to complete these
activities, and more viable and
cost-effective solutions than
traditional technologies.
Innovative technologies provide
alternatives that can quickly treat
and eliminate sources of
contamination, and reduce the
long-term liability and risk to site
owners.
A Quick Look
assessment firms have
entered industrial land
markets that could turn
mothballed properties
into assets. For example,
the State of Wisconsin
adopted a statutory revision that
allows for the recovery of environmental costs from
current owners when a city condemns and cleans
properties. The city of Milwaukee, a brownfields
showcase community, believes the statute significantly
increased the city's ability to encourage owners of
mothballed properties to move toward redevelopment.
For the first time, that state's cost
recovery statute gives a city
bargaining power in negotiations
with owners of mothballed
properties.
For some sites undergoing
cleanup using long-term
conventional technologies, such
as pump and treat and barriers, consideration should be
given to innovative technologies that could greatly
expedite the cleanup process and the redevelopment
potential of the site. For example, at a former wood
treating site in Visalia, California, steam injection was
tried instead of the existing pump and treat system.
Using this alternative resulted in a 1,000-fold increase in
the rate of contaminant recovery. In addition, because
steam injection is accelerating the time frame of
remediation, there is a projected savings of $25 million in
cleanup costs for this site.
As new economic incentives have developed, states,
developers, venture capital firms, insurers, and risk
"Mothballed" sites are large, idle areas
formerly used for manufacturing and other
industrial uses, and are unavailable for
sale or redevelopment.
Reasons for "mothballing" sites include
uncertainty about assessment and
cleanup costs and potential liability from
contamination that has not been identified,
orthere is an existing, long-term cleanup
program already in place.
Mothballed sites are problematic because
they often interfere with larger
development plans.
Interest is increasing at the local level to
identify options to expedite the cleanup of
mothballed sites where they are impeding
redevelopment plans.
At the federal level, tax credits
and deductions for costs related
to environmental remediation can
encourage owners of mothballed
properties to clean up their
properties. As specified in
Section 198 of the Internal
Revenue Code, taxpayers are
permitted to treat as a deduction
qualified expenses for
environmental remediation at a
qualified site. Such an incentive
may convince owners of
mothballed properties that
cleaning up such sites would be
more profitable than allowing the
sites to remain idle.
EPA TIO has a project underway to better understand why
sites are mothballed and identify where there may be
additional opportunities to use innovative technologies and
approaches to expedite the cleanup of those sites. Contact
Dan Powell of EPA's TIO for more information (see Appendix
C, List of Brownfields and Technical Support Contacts, for
contact information).
For more information, see the resource numbered
141 in the Index of Resources beginning on page 1-1.
26
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
SITE INVESTIGATION
Identify the Source, Nature, and
Extent of Contamination
This phase focuses on confirming whether any
contamination exists at a site, locating any existing
contamination, and characterizing the nature and
extent of that contamination. It is essential that an
appropriately detailed study of the site be performed to
identify the cause, nature, and extent of contamination
and the possible threats to the environment or to any
people living or working nearby. For brownf ields sites,
the results of such a study can be used in determining
goals for cleanup, quantifying risks, determining
acceptable and unacceptable risk, and developing
effective cleanup plans that do not cause unnecessary
delays or costs in the redevelopment and reuse of
property. To ensure that sufficient information
supporting future activities is obtained, the type of data
to be collected during this phase should be determined
by the proposed cleanup measures and the proposed
end use of the site.
A site investigation, also referred to as an ASTM Phase
II environmental site assessment, is based on the results
of the site assessment, which is discussed in the
preceding section of the Road Map. The site
investigation phase may include the analysis of
samples of soil and soil gas, groundwater, surface
water, and sediment. The migration pathways of
contaminants also are examined during this phase, and
a baseline risk assessment may be needed to calculate
risk to human health and the environment. Examples
of sampling and analysis technologies that may be
useful during this phase are presented in Appendix A,
Table A-2, Technologies for Sampling and Analyzing
Contaminants Found at Typical Brownfield Sites.
What Do We Need To Know?
I
Factors that should be considered during the site
investigation, if there is evidence of potential or actual
contamination include:
1. Will the site be entered into a VCP? If so, will the
investigation plan be reviewed through the VCP? If
not, are there federal, state, local, and tribal
regulatory requirements applicable to the site
investigation? What agency will be responsible for
managing oversight of this phase? What is to be
done if the appropriate agency has not developed
standards or guidelines that are suitable for the
proposed redevelopment?
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 27
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
2. What technologies are available to facilitate site
investigation and to support data collection relevant
to the goals of the project? Has the technical team
explored the full range of technologies that can
produce data of the quality necessary? Can the
technologies selected limit the number of
mobilizations at the site?
3. Can the need for cleanup be assessed fully and
accurately from the information gathered during the
site assessment or from a previous site investigation?
4. What issues has the community raised that may
affect the site investigation?
5. What are the potential exposure pathways? Who or
what could be affected by the contamination or the
efforts to clean up the contamination?
6. What happens if significant contamination is found?
What happens if contamination poses a "significant
threat" to local residents?
7. What happens if the contamination is originating
from an adjacent or other off-site source? What
happens if background sampling indicates that
contamination is originating from a naturally
occurring source?
8. Are the infrastructure systems (roads, buildings,
sewers, and other facilities) contaminated? Could
they be affected by efforts to clean up contamination?
The following table describes field analytical
technologies and mobile laboratories.
How Do We Find The Answers?*
Highlights of Field Analytical Technologies and Mobile Laboratories
Field Analytical Technologies: Field analytical technologies, often
referred to as "field analytics," can be used onsite without the
absolute need for a mobile laboratory. Some field analytical
technologies are very sophisticated and can yield quantitative results
that are comparable to those obtained by analysis in mobile or off-site
laboratories. Some field analytical measurements can be made
quickly, allowing a high rate of sampling. Under certain conditions,
data can be collected in a short period of time. Field analytical
technologies are implemented through the use of hand-held
instruments, such as the portable gas chromatography and mass
spectrometry and the x-ray fluorescence analyzer, as well as the use
of bench procedures, such as colorimetric and immunoassay tests.
Mobile Laboratories: A variety of technologies can be used in a
mobile laboratory. Such technologies differ from field analytical
technologies because they may require more controlled conditions
(such as temperature, humidity, and source of electricity) or complex
sample preparation that uses solvents or reagents that require special
handling or protective equipment that require the handling and
storage of chemical standards. Technologies adaptable to mobile
laboratories include those used to analyze soil and water samples for
inorganic analytes (such as anodic stripping voltammetry) and
organic compounds (such as gas chromatography with a variety of
detectors). When operated properly and with adequate quality
assurance and quality control (QA/QC), the technologies can achieve
quantitative results equal to those achieved by off-site analytical
laboratories.
Typical activities that may be conducted during the
site investigation phase include:
• Identify the proper mix of technologies (such as
field measurement technologies that
characterize the physical and chemical aspects
of the site and fixed laboratory sampling
methods) that can facilitate site investigations
and meet the required level of data quality:
- Ensure that the laboratory has appropriate
detection limits for analytes
• Determine the environmental conditions at the
site (for example, by performing an ASTM Phase
II environmental site assessment or equivalent
investigation that includes tests to confirm the
locations and identities of environmental
hazards):
- Conduct sampling and analysis to determine the
nature, extent, source, and significance of the
contamination that may be present at the site
- Conduct sampling and analysis to fully assess the
physical, geophysical, and ecological conditions
and characteristics of the site
- Interpret the results of the analysis to characterize
site conditions
- Determine whether and how (if applicable)
the infrastructure systems (including existing
structures) are affected by contamination
• Assess the risk the site may pose to human
health and the environment. Consider the
following exposure pathways:
- For soil and dust, direct contact, ingestion, or
inhalation
- For water, ingestion and inhalation
- For air, inhalation or ingestion
• Consider the use of a site-specific risk
assessment to identify cleanup levels when that
approach may result in more reasonable
cleanup standards or when cleanup standards
have not been developed
• Examine unacceptable environmental
conditions in terms of initial costs for site
improvement and long-term costs for annual
operation and maintenance — include potential
* Please note that the Road Map seeks to answer technology
selection questions and is not intended to provide a response to
each procedural question identified.
28
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING !NNOVAT!VE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
cleanup options and constraints that may affect
redevelopment requirements, such as project
schedules, costs, and potential for achieving the
desired reuse
Revise assumptions about the site based on data
collected at the site
Begin consideration of sources of funding for
site investigation and cleanup activities such as
state brownfields programs and federal tax
credits:
- Contact the EPA regional brownfields coordinator
to identify and determine the availability of EPA
support programs and federal financial incentives
Continue to work with appropriate regulatory
agencies to ensure that regulatory requirements
are being properly addressed:
- Identify and consult with the appropriate federal,
state, local, and tribal agencies to include them as
early as possible in the decision-making process
Educate members of the community about the
site investigation process and actively involve
them in decision making; consider risk
communication techniques to facilitate those
activities
Where Do We Find Help To Our
Technology Questions?
Listed below are examples of resources that assist in
identifying the environmental condition of a site.
Information about the availability of electronic
resources — whether the item is found on the Road
Map's accompanying CD-ROM or on various web
sites — also is provided. Appendix D, How to Order
Documents, provides complete ordering information
for documents that are not available on the CD-ROM
or on the Internet.
A. Resources for Site Investigation
The documents listed below are resources that provide
general information about the availability of technology
resources in the form ofbibliographies, status reports, and
user guidelines.
ASTM Standard Guide for Accelerated Site
Characterization for Confirmed or Suspected
Petroleum Releases (E1912-98)
Order online at www.astm.org
Developed by ASTM, the guide describes accelerated
site characterization (ASC), a process used to rapidly
and accurately characterize confirmed or suspected
releases of petroleum. The guide provides a
framework that responsible parties, contractors,
consultants, and regulators can use to streamline and
accelerate site characterization. The guide is
available at $35 per copy and can be downloaded
from the ASTM web site or ordered by telephone at
610-832-9585 or by facsimile at 610-832-9555.
ASTM Standard Guide for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment Process (E1903-97)
Order on lineatwww.astm.org
Developed by ASTM, the guide discusses the
framework for employing good commercial and
customary practices in the U.S. when conducting
Phase II environmental site assessments of commercial
property with respect to the potential presence of a
range of contaminants within the scope of CERCLA, as
well as petroleum products. The practice, available at
$35 per copy, can be downloaded from the ASTM web
site or ordered by telephone at 610-832-9585 or by
facsimile at 610-832-9555.
Brownfields Technology Primer:
Requesting and Evaluating Proposals
That Encourage Innovative Technologies
for Investigation and Cleanup
(EPA542-R-01-005)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The BTSC prepared this primer to assist site owners,
project managers, and others preparing RFPs to solicit
support in conducting activities to investigate and
clean up contaminated sites. It is specifically
intended to assist those individuals in writing
specifications that encourage contractors and
technology vendors to propose options for using
innovative characterization and remediation
technologies at brownfields sites. The primer also
provides information, from a technology perspective,
to guide review teams in their evaluations of
proposals and the selection of qualified contractors.
Cost Estimating Tools and Resources for Addressing
the Brownfields Initiatives (EPA 625-R-99-001)
Orderonlineatwww.epa.gov/ncepihom
The guide is one in a series of publications designed
to assist communities, states, municipalities, and the
private sector to address brownfields sites more
effectively. The guide, which is designed to be used
with the three guides for specific types of sites -
Technical Approaches to Characterizing and
Cleaning Up Automotive Repair Sites Under the
Brownfields Initiative, Technical Approaches to
• Background • Introduction • Before You • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 29
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Characterizing and Cleaning Up Iron and Steel Mill
Sites Under the Brownfields Initiative, and Technical
Approaches to Characterizing and Cleaning Up
Metal Finishing Sites Under the Brownfields Initiative
- provides information about cost estimating tools and
resources for addressing cleanup costs atbrownfields
sites. Many decision makers at brownf ields sites may
choose to assign the preparation of cost estimates to
consultants who are experienced in the cleanup of
hazardous waste sites; however, it benefits those
decision makers to be able to provide guidance to
their consultants and to understand the process
sufficiently well to provide an informed review of the
estimates prepared. The guide provides general
information about the cost estimation process and
includes summaries of various types of estimates.
The guide also outlines the process of developing
"order of magnitude" cost estimates. Information
about resources, databases, and models also is
provided.
Data Quality Objective Process for
Hazardous Waste Site Investigations
(EPA 600-R-00-007)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The document focuses on the DQO process as the
appropriate systematic planning process to support
decision making. The DQO process is an important
tool for project managers and planners to use in
defining the types, quality, and quantity of data
needed to make defensible decisions. The document
is based on the principles and steps developed in
Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, but
is specific to investigations of hazardous waste sites.
The guidance is also consistent with Data Quality
Objectives Process for Superf und: Interim Final
Guidance (EPA 1993) and Soil Screening Guidance:
User's Guide (EPA 1996). Although the document
focuses on EPA applications, the guidance also is
applicable to programs at the state and local levels.
Engineering and Design: Requirements
for the Preparation of Sampling and
Analysis Plans (EM 200-1-3)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
Developed by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, the
manual provides guidance for the preparation of
project-specific SAPs for the collection of
environmental data. In addition, the manual presents
default sampling and analytical protocols that may be
used verbatim or modified based in light of the DQOs
for a specific project. The goal of the manual is to
promote consistency in the generation and execution
of sampling and analysis plans and therefore to help
investigators generate chemical data of known quality
for the purpose to which those data are to be used.
EPA Office of Solid Waste SW-846 On-
Line: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods
View on line at www. epa.gov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/test/maina. htm
Developed by EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW), the
web site provides test procedures and guidance that
EPA recommends for use in conducting the
evaluations and measurements needed to comply with
requirements established under RCRA. The manual
presents state-of-the-art methods of routine analytical
testing, adapted for use under the RCRA program. It
presents procedures for field and laboratory quality
control, sampling, identification of hazardous
constituents in wastes, determination of the hazardous
characteristics of wastes (toxicity, ignitability,
reactivity, or corrosivity), and determination of the
physical properties of wastes. It also provides
guidance on selecting appropriate methods.
EPA REACH IT Online Searchable Database
Viewonlineatwww.epareachit.org
The EPA REACH IT online searchable database
provides users comprehensive, up-to-date
information about more than 150 characterization
technologies which may be applicable during the site
investigation phase. The guided and advanced
search capabilities of the system can be used to gather
information about innovative technology solutions
and service providers. The information is based upon
data submitted by vendors and project managers for
EPA, DoD, DOE, and state agencies. EPA REACH IT
is accessible only through the Internet.
Evaluation of Selected Environmental Decision
Support Software (DSS)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
Developed by DOE's Office of Environmental
Management, the report evaluates DSS, computer-
based systems that facilitate the use of data, models,
and structured decision processes in making
decisions related to environmental management. The
report evaluates 19 such systems through the
application of a rating system that favors software
that simulates a wide range of environmental
problems. It includes a glossary of terms and a
statement of the rationale for the selection of various
aspects of the performance of the DSS for evaluation.
30
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Field Analytic Technologies Encyclopedia
(FATE)
View on line at http://fate.du-in.org
The online encyclopedia provides
information about technologies that
investigators can use in the field to characterize
contaminated soil and groundwater; monitor the
progress of remedial efforts; and, in some cases,
perform confirmation sampling and analysis to
support closeout of a site. It highlights new tools for
improving cleanup and long-term monitoring of
contaminated sites, such as computerization,
microf abrication, and biotechnology, that permit the
development of analytical equipment that has
capabilities that blur the distinction between
"screening methods" and "definitive methods." The
encyclopedia serves a wide range of users, from
engineering students to field technicians and site
managers.
Field Sampling and Analysis Technologies Matrix,
Version 1.0
View on line at www.frtr.gov/site
The matrix, an online tool, will assist brownfields
stakeholders to obtain information about and screen
technologies applicable for site investigation. Each
site characterization technology is rated in a number
of performance categories, such as detection limits,
applicable media, selectivity, and turnaround time.
Other useful information provided includes
technology descriptions; data on commercial status,
cost, and certification; and evaluation reports. The
matrix is extremely helpful to users who are not
familiar with specific characterization technologies,
but who know baseline information about a site, such
as contaminants and media; for such users, the matrix
can identify and screen technologies for potential use
at a site.
Guideline for Dynamic Workplans and Field
Analytics: The Keys to Cost-Effective Site
Characterization and Cleanup
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
Developed by Tufts University in cooperation with
EPA, the document provides users with information
about the many factors that are to be considered in
incorporating field analytical instruments and
methods into an adaptive sampling and analysis
program for expediting the site investigation process.
The guidance is intended to assist federal and state
regulators, site owners, consulting engineers, and
remediation companies understand how to develop,
maintain, and update a dynamic workplan.
Improving the Cost-Effectiveness of
Hazardous Waste Site Characterization
and Monitoring
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The report introduces a new standard promoted by
EPA's OSWER and TIO that encourages more effective
and less costly strategies for characterizing and
monitoring hazardous waste sites. The new
approach uses an integrated triad of systematic
planning, dynamic work plans, and onsite analysis
for data collection and technical decision making at
hazardous waste sites. Individually, none of the
concepts in the triad is new, but it has been
demonstrated that the integrated approach completes
projects faster, cheaper, and with greater regulatory
and client satisfaction than the traditional phased
approach. The report includes a list of additional
resources regarding innovative technologies and site
characterization.
Innovations in Site Characterization Case Study
Series
View or download pdffiles on the Road Map CD-ROM
The case studies provide cost and performance
information about the innovative technologies that
support less costly and more representative site
characterization. The purpose of the case studies is to
analyze and document the effectiveness of new
technologies proposed for site cleanup. They present
information about the capability of the technologies in
analyzing and monitoring cleanup, as well as
information about costs associated with the use of the
technologies. The following case studies are available:
- Hanscom Air Force Base, Operable Unit 1 (EPA
542-R-98-006)
- Dexsil L2000 PCB/Chloride Analyzer for Drum
Surfaces (EPA 542-R-99-003)
- Geophysical Investigation at Hazardous Waste Sites
(EPA 542-R-00-003)
- Site Cleanup of the Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
Site Using a Dynamic Work Plan (2000) (EPA 542-
R-00-009)
Innovative Remediation and Site
Characterization Technologies Resources
(EPA542-C-01-001)
Order on line at www.epa.gov/ncepihom
Produced by EPA's TIO, the CD-ROM contains
resources that provide information to help federal,
state, and private-sector site managers evaluate site
assessment and cleanup alternatives. The ability to
gain access to resources that provide information
about innovative site characterization and
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 31
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
remediation technologies will increase understanding
of those technologies and of the cost and performance
factors related to them. Such understanding is
essential to the consideration of those technologies for
use in addressing contamination at hazardous waste
sites. Several resources included on the CD-ROM also
are available on the Road Map CD-ROM.
Public Technology Inc/s
BrownfieldsTech.org
View on line at www.brownfieldstech.org
The web site, hosted by Public Technology,
Inc. (PTI), and sponsored in part by EPA's TIO,
provides information about characterization and
remediation of brownfields. The site focuses on the
demonstration, dissemination, and promotion of
innovative characterization and remediation
technologies suitable for use at brownfields sites to
help local governments increase efficiencies and
reduce costs associated with brownfields
redevelopment. The site highlights "hot" technologies
that currently are proving themselves in the field,
provides case studies that introduce the user to cities
that are experiencing succession employing innovative
site characterization and remediation technologies,
profiles of local government leaders who are
employing brownfields remediation technologies to
good effect, and provides links to other key web sites.
Resources for Strategic Site Investigation
and Monitoring (EPA 542-F-01-030B)
View or download pdffile at http://clu-in.org
The document is a concise guide to
resources, both existing and planned, that
support new, streamlined approaches to site
investigation and monitoring. It describes training
courses available, including some that are
downloadable; lists sources of information about
available technologies and guidance documents
available through EPA programs; and provides
sources of information about technology verification
and demonstration efforts. The guide also lists a
number of web sites from which related publications
and software can be downloaded. The document can
be downloaded from CLU-IN under "Publications."
Sensor Technology Information Exchange
(SenTIX)
View on lineat www.sentix.org
SenTIX serves as a forum to exchange
information about sensor technologies and
needs. The purpose of the web site is to serve as a tool to
assist those working in the environmental field in
cleaning up hazardous waste. The submit and search
functions of SenTIX can help match users looking for a
sensor technology to meet a specific need. The
discussion forum also matches developers, vendors,
and users. The site was developed by WPI, a nonprofit
organization, under a cooperative agreement with EPA.
Site Characterization and Monitoring Technologies:
Bibliography of EPA Information Resources
(EPA 542-B-98-003)
View on line at http://clu-in.org
The bibliography lists information resources, both
publications and electronic databases, that focus on
evaluation and use of innovative site characterization
and monitoring technologies. The document also
provides information on obtaining copies of the
documents.
Site Characterization Library, Volume 1, Release 2.0
(EPA600-C-98-001)
Orderonlineatwww.epa.gov/ncepihom
The CD-ROM, developed by EPA NERL, contains the
following documents and software:
- ASSESS Version 1.1 A (PB93-505154) is an
interactive QA/QC program designed to assist the
user in statistically determining the quality of data
from soil samples.
- BIOPLUMEII is a model for two-dimensional
transport of contaminants under the influence of
oxygen-limited Uodegradation ingroundwater.
- CalTox is a multimedia total exposure model for
hazardous waste.
- CHEMFLO enables users to simulate water
movement and chemical transport in unsaturated
soils.
- DEFT is a software package that allows a decision
maker to quickly generate cost information about
several sampling designs based on DQOs.
- FEMWATER/LEWASTE is software which can be
used to delineate wellhead protection areas in
agricultural regions by using a criterion that
considers environmental factors that reduce the
concentration of contaminants transported to wells.
- Geo-EAS Versionl.2.1 (PB93-504957) is an
interactive tool for performing two-dimensional
geostatistical analyses of spatially-distributed data.
- GEOPACK is a comprehensive geostatistical software
package that allows both novices and advanced users
to conduct geostatistical analyses of spatially-
correlated data.
- Geophysics Advisor Expert System Version 2.0
(PB93-505162) is a program that considers several
geophysical methods of determining the location of
contamination and providing site characterization to
make recommendations about the best methods to use
at a specific site.
32
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
GEOS software facilitates the collection and analysis
ofgeoenvironmental data.
GRITS/STAT is a comprehensive database system for
storing, analyzing, and reporting information from
ground-water monitoring programs at RCRA,
CERCLA, and other regulated facilities and sites.
HELP is a two-dimensional modeling program that
simulates water movement into and out of landfills on
the basis of a waste management system.
IMES offers a computer-based tool for matching site
characteristics with an appropriate exposure
assessment model or models.
MOFAT, a two-dimensional, finite element model for
simulating coupled multiphase flow and
multicomponent transport in planar or radically
symmetric vertical sections, can be used to evaluate
flow and transport for water, NAPLs, and gas.
MULTIMED is a one-dimensional, steady-state
model used to predict the concentrations of
contaminants migrating from a waste disposal
facility through the subsurface, surface water, and air
pathways to receptor sites.
PEST AN assists users in estimating the vertical
migration of dissolved organic solutes through the
vadose zone togroundwater.
PRZM-2 is a pesticide flow-and-transport model for
the root zone and vadose zone.
RETC is a program used in analyzing the hydraulic
conductivity properties ofunsaturated soil.
Scout Versionl.Q is a user-friendly and menu-driven
program that provides a graphical display of data in
a multidimensional format that allows visual
inspection of data, accentuates obvious outliers, and
provides an easy measure for comparing data.
STF (VIP + RITZ) consists of three components that
provide information about the behavior of chemicals
in soil environments. The models simulate the
movement and fate of hazardous chemicals during
treatment of oily wastes.
Subsurface Characterization and Monitoring
Techniques is an interactive, multimedia version of
the two-volume EPA publication titled Subsurface
Characterization and Monitoring Techniques. The
documents include descriptions of more than 280 site
characterization and field monitoring methods of
detectinggroundwater contamination and other
aspects of the subsurface at hazardous waste sites.
Geological and hydrogeological characterization
topics covered include surface and borehole
approaches, geophysical methods, and sampling of
solids; drilling; aquifer tests and groundwater
sampling; water-state measurement and monitoring;
measurement of hydraulic conductivity and flux in
the vadose zone; water budget characterization; soil-
solute sampling and gas monitoring in the vadose
zone; and field chemical analytical methods. The
electronic version of the guide includes graphic
support with animation and hypertext links that
make all text readily accessible.
- Total Human Exposure Risk database and Advanced
Simulation Environment (THERdbASE), Version
1.2, is an integrated database and analytical and
modeling software system for use in exposure
assessment calculations and studies. It provides a
prototype for smoothly and efficiently linking
communication between databases and exposure
assessment models.
- VLEACH provides users a one-dimensional, finite
difference model for making preliminary assessments
of the effects on groundwater of leaching of volatile,
sorbed contaminants through the vadose zone.
- WhAEM is a computer-based tool used in decision-
making processes related to the protection of
wellheads.
- WHPA, a semi-analytical groundwater flow
simulation program, can be used for delineating
capture zones in a wellhead protection area.
Superf und Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program Demonstration Reports
View or download reports at www.epa.gov/ord/STTE/
reports.html
An extensive inventory of reports of the evaluation of
measurement and monitoring technologies in the
SITE program is available to assist decision makers in
reviewing technology options and assessing a
technology's applicability to a particular site. The
reports evaluate all information about a technology;
provide an analysis of its overall applicability to site
characteristics, waste types, and waste matrices; and
present testing procedures, performance and cost
data, and QA/QC standards. The Demonstration
Bulletins provide summarized descriptions of
technologies and announcements of demonstrations.
The Innovative Technology Evaluation Reports
provide full reports of the demonstration results,
including technical data useful to decision makers.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
Preferred Alternatives Matrices (PAMs)
View on line at www.em.doe.gov/define
Developed by DOE, the PAMs web site
provides access to evaluations of site
characterization and remediation technologies
preferred by DOE on the basis of the types of
contaminants and contaminated media selected.
PAMs was developed by DOE's Office of
Environmental Restoration (EM-40) to assist decision
makers in selecting the most appropriate cleanup
alternatives for remediation, waste processing, and
decommissioning of sites. It provides a tool for field
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 33
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
personnel to use in focusing remedy selection;
expediting implementation of preferred alternatives;
eliminating the cost of excessive or redundant
treatability studies; and allowing preselection of
effective, low-cost remediation alternatives.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Vendor
Database for Environmental Applications
View online at www. cmst. org/vendor
The web site is devoted to measurements of
the chemical and physical properties of
environmental samples. The Characterization,
Monitoring & Sensor Technology - Cross-Cutting
Program (CMST-CP) maintains the vendor database
as a focal point for environmental measurement
technologies. The CMST-CP vendor database
matches the user's measurement needs with available
products. The site allows the user to enter products
and applications, search applications for
measurement instruments and sensors, and browse
technologies by instrument category.
B. Site-Specific Resources for Site Investigation
Listed below are survey reports on the application of
innovative technologies to specific contaminants and site
types.
Application of Field-Based
Characterization Tools in the Waterfront
Voluntary Setting
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
This report investigates the reasons voluntary action
to redevelop potentially contaminated property is
subject to market constraints and other pressures that
differ vastly from those that affect corrective action
programs. It sets forth in detail the current level of
application of field-based characterization tools at
115 waterfront brownfields sites and sites being
addressed under VCP programs.
Characterization of Mine Leachates and
the Development of a Ground-Water
Monitoring Strategy for Mine Sites
(EPA600-R-99-007)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The objective of the research project was to develop a
better understanding of the composition of mine
waste leachates and to identify cost-effective
groundwater monitoring parameters that could be
incorporated into a monitoring strategy to reliably
detect the migration of contaminants from hard-rock
mining operations.
Contaminants and Remedial Options at Pesticide
Sites (EPA 600-R-94-202, PB95-183869)
Orderonlineatwww.epa.gov/ncepihom
The document provides information about treatment
technologies and the selection of services at pesticide
sites to meet acceptable levels of cleanliness as
required by applicable regulations. It is targeted
primarily for the use of federal, state, or private site
removal and remediation managers. The document
does not identify or establish cleanup levels.
Contaminants and Remedial Options at Selected
Metal-Contaminated Sites (EPA 540-R-95-512,
PB95-271961)
Orderonlineatwww.epa.gov/ncepihom
The report provides information on site
characterization and the selection of treatment
technologies capable of meeting site-specific cleanup
levels at sites contaminated with metal. It is targeted
to federal, state, and private site removal and
remediation managers. The report focuses primarily
on metalloid arsenic and metals, including cadmium,
chromium, lead, and mercury. The report does not
identify or establish cleanup levels.
EPA ORD Brownfields Guides
View on line at www.epa.gov/ncepihom/nepishom
The series of publications are designed to assist
communities, states, municipalities, and the private
sector to address brownfields sites more effectively.
The guides provide decision makers, such as city
planners, private sector developers, and others who
are involved in redeveloping brownfields, with a
better understanding of the technical issues involved
in assessing and cleaning up automotive repair sites,
iron and steel mill sites, and metal finishing sites.
After reading the guides, the user will have a better
understanding of activities commonly carried out at
such sites and how those activities might cause the
release of contaminants into the environment. The
guides also provide information about the types of
contaminants often found at such sites; a discussion
of site assessment, screening and cleanup levels, and
cleanup technologies; a conceptual framework for
identifying potential contaminants; information about
developing a cleanup plan; and a discussion of issues
and special factors that should be considered when
developing plans and selecting technologies. The
following guides are available:
- Technical Approaches to Characterizing and
Cleaning Up Automotive Repair Sites Under the
Brownfields Initiative (EPA 625-R-98-008)
34
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
- Technical Approaches to Characterizing and
Cleaning Up Iron and Steel Mill Sites Under the
Brownfields Initiative (EPA 625-R-98-007)
- Technical Approaches to Characterizing and
Cleaning Up Metal Finishing Sites Under the
Brownfields Initiative (EPA 625-R-98-006)
Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground
Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regulators
(EPA 510-B-97-001)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
Produced by EPA's OUST, this guide is designed to
help state and federal regulators with responsibility
for USTs to evaluate conventional and new site
assessment technologies and promote the use of
expedited site assessments. The manual covers five
major issues related to UST site assessments: the
expedited site assessment process; surface
geophysical methods for UST site investigations; soil-
gas surveys; direct push technologies; and field
analytical methods for the analysis of petroleum
hydrocarbons. The equipment and methods
presented in the manual are evaluated in terms of
applicability, advantages, and limitations for use at
petroleum UST sites.
Resource for MGP Site Characterization
and Remediation: Expedited Site
Characterization and Source Remediation
at Former Manufactured Gas Plant Sites
(EPA542-R-00-005)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The document provides current information about
useful approaches and tools being applied at former
manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites to the regulators
and utilities that are engaged in characterizing and
remediating these sites. The document outlines site
management strategies and field tools for expediting
site characterization at MGP sites; presents a
summary of existing technologies for remediating
MGP wastes in soils; provides sufficient information
about the benefits, limitations, and costs of each
technology, tool, or strategy for comparison and
evaluation; and provides, through case studies,
examples of the ways in which those tools and
strategies can be implemented at MGP sites.
Risk-Management Strategy for PCB-
Contaminated Sediments
View or order on line at www. nap.edu/books/
0309073219/html
The report, prepared by the National
Research Council's Committee on the Remediation of
PCB-Contaminated Sediments under an EPA grant,
reviews the nature of the challenge involved in the
management of sediments contaminated with PCBs;
provides an overview of current knowledge about the
inputs, fates, and effects of PCBs; recommends a risk-
based framework for use in assessing remediation
technologies and risk-management strategies; and
elaborates on the framework as it is applicable
specifically to sediments contaminated with PCBs.
C. Technology-Specific Resources for Site
Investigation
The documents listed below provide detailed information
about specific innovative technologies and the application of
those processes to specific contaminants and media in the
form of engineering analyses, application reports,
technology verification and evaluation reports, and
technology reviews.
A User's Guide to Environmental
Immunochemical Analysis
Viewonlineatwww.epa.gov/nerlesdl/
chemistry/immochem/user-guide.htm
Developed by EPA's ORD, the document
facilitates transfer of immunochemical methods for
the analysis of environmental contaminants to the
environmental analytical chemistry laboratory. Field
personnel who may have a need to employ a
measurement technology at a monitoring site also
may find this manual helpful. The document
instructs the reader in the use and application of
immunochemical methods of analysis for
environmental contaminants. It includes a general
troubleshooting guide, along with specific
instructions for certain analytes. The guide is written
in a manner that allows the user to apply the
information presented to immunoassays that are not
discussed in the manual.
California Environmental Technology Certification
Program - California Certified Technologies List
View on line at www.calepa.ca.gov/calcert
The California Environmental Protection Agency's
(Cal/EPA) Environmental Technology Certification
program Internet site provides the user access to the
California Certified Technologies List. The document
provides a list of technologies and their respective
vendors that have been certified by the state of
California. Certification is granted to technologies on
the basis of an independent, third-party verification
of the technology's performance and ability to meet
regulatory specifications and requirements.
Developers and manufacturers define quantitative
performance claims for their technologies and provide
supporting documentation. Cal/EPA reviews that
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 35
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
information and, when necessary, conducts
additional testing to verify the claims. Technologies,
equipment, and products that are proven to work as
claimed receive official state certification.
EPA Dynamic Field Activities Internet Site
View on line at www.epa.gov/superfund/
programs/dfa/index. htm
Hosted by EPA's Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR), the Internet site provides
resources to assist decision makers to streamline
activities conducted at hazardous waste sites using
real-time data and real-time decisions. Descriptions
of the specific elements of dynamic field activities are
provided, as well as related guidance documents and
publications, including links to relevant Internet sites.
Information about on-site analytical tools suitable for
use during dynamic field activities also is provided.
Environmental Technology Verification Reports
View or download pdffiles at www.epa.gov/etv
Produced by EPA's ORD, the Environmental
Technology Verification (ETV) program reports
provide extensive information about the performance
of commercial-ready, private sector technologies. The
reports, intended for buyers of technologies,
developers of technologies, consulting engineers, and
state and federal agencies, verify the environmental
performance characteristics of those technologies
through the conduct of pilots. The reports, as well as
other information about the ETV program, are
available on the ETV site. ETV reports and
verification statements about the following
technologies are available:
- Cone penetrometer-deployed sensor
- Environmental decision support software
- Explosive detection
- Field-portable gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer
- Field-portable x-ray fluorescence analyzer
- Groundwatersampling
- PCB field analysis technologies
- Portable gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer
- Soil/soil gas sampling
- Well-head monitoring for volatile organic
compounds (VOC)
- Soil sampling technologies
Federal Facilities Forum Issue: Field Sampling and
Selecting On-Site Analytical Methods for Explosives
in Soil (EPA 540-R-97-501)
View or download pdf file on the Road Map CD-ROM
This paper was prepared by members of the Federal
Facilities Forum, a group of EPA scientists and
engineers representing EPA regional offices and
committed to the identification and resolution of
issues affecting federal facility Superfund and RCRA
sites. The purpose of the paper is to provide guidance
to remedial project managers (RPM) about field
sampling and on-site analytical methods for detecting
and quantifying secondary explosive contaminants in
soil. The paper is divided into the following sections:
(1) background information; (2) overview of sampling
and analysis of explosives; (3) data quality objectives;
(4) unique sampling and design considerations for
dealing with contaminants from explosives; (5) a
summary of on-site analytical methods; and, (6) a
summary of the EPA reference analytical methods.
Field Validation of a Penetrometer-Based Fiber
Optic Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant (POL) Sensor:
Project Summary (EPA 600-SR-97-055)
View on line at www.epa.gov/ncepihom/nepishom
The report provides comprehensive comparisons of in
situ measurements from a cone penetrometer-
deployed laser induced fluorescence (LIP) petroleum,
oil, and lubricant (POL) sensor with traditional field
screening methods. The report includes an
introduction that describes the system and indicates
the technology constraints. In addition to
conclusions and recommendations, the report also
provides information about methods and materials,
such as calibration and sampling procedures,
analytical methods, and methods of data
reproduction and analysis. Two case studies help
illustrate the concepts discussed.
Hydrogeologic Characterization of Fractured Rock
Formations: A Guide for Groundwater Remediators;
Project Summary (EPA 600-S-96-001)
View or download pdf file on the Road Map CD-ROM
This report describes the conduct and findings of a
hydrogeologic characterization study of a saturated
fractured, granitic rock aquifer in the foothills of the
Sierra Nevada mountains in California. First, the
report presents an overview of the problems
associated with remediating fractured aquifers,
referring to case histories as examples. Brief
descriptions of the methods and results of the
characterization effort at the experimental field site
then are presented. The remaining chapters present
particular phases of the characterization effort and a
general strategy for hydrogeologic characterization,
with each tool and method described in detail. In
addition, the report discusses issues related to the
effect of incorrect characterization of flow properties
on prediction of the behavior of a contaminant.
36
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Tri-Service Site Characterization and
Analysis Penetrometer System—SCAPS:
Innovative Environmental Technology
from Concept to Commercialization
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The report, published by the U.S. Army
Environmental Center, summarizes the development,
field demonstration and regulatory acceptance
activities associated with the SCAPS technologies that
are used to detect, identify, and quantify subsurface
contamination in soil and groundwater.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Next Steps
After you have completed your investigation of the
environmental conditions at the site, you may take
one of the following courses of action:
Results of the Site
Investigation
Course of Action
No contamination is
found.
Consult with
appropriate regulatory
officials before
proceeding with
redevelopment
activities.
Contamination is
found BUT does not
pose a significant
risk to stakeholders'
human health or the
environment.
Consult with
appropriate regulatory
officials before
proceeding with
redevelopment
activities.
Cleanup of the
contamination
found probably will
require a small
expenditure of funds
and time.
Proceed to the
CLEANUP OPTIONS
phase.
Cleanup of the
contamination
found probably will
require a significant
expenditure of funds
and time. However,
contamination
does not pose a
significant threat
to local residents.
Determine whether
redevelopment
continues to be
practicable as planned,
or whether the
redevelopment plan
can be altered to fit the
circumstances; if so,
proceed to the
CLEANUP OPTIONS
phase.
Contamination is
found that poses a
significant threat
to local residents.
Contact the
appropriate federal,
state, local, or tribal
government agencies
responsible for
hazardous waste. If
contamination exists at
considerable levels,
compliance with other
programs, such as
RCRA and Superfund,
may be required.
• Background • Introduction • You • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 37
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
KEYS TO TECHNOLOGY SELECTION
ANDACCEPTANCE
As described throughout the Road Map, innovative
technologies and technology approaches offer many
advantages in the cleanup of brownfields sites.
Stakeholders in such sites, however, first must accept the
technology. Brownfields decision makers should
consider the following elements to increase the likelihood
that the technology will be accepted, thereby facilitating the
cleanup of the site.
k 1 Focus on the Decisions that Support Site Goals
As discussed in Spotlight 4, The Triad Approach (see next page),
systematic planning is an important element of all cleanup
activities. Clear and specific planning to meet explicit decision
objectives is essential in managing the process of cleaning up
contaminated sites: site assessment, site investigation, site
monitoring, and remedy selection. With good planning,
brownfields decision makers can establish the cleanup goals
forthe site, identify the decisions necessary to achieve those
goals, and develop and implement a strategy for addressing the
decision needs. Technology decisions are made in the context
of the requirements for such decisions. All cleanup activities
are driven by the project goals. An explicit statement of the
decisions to be made and the way in which the planned
approach supports the decisions should be included in the work
plan.
.2 Build Consensus
nvesting time, before the site work begins, in developing
decisions that are acceptable to all decision makers will foster
more efficient site activities and make successful cleanup
more likely. Conversely, allowing work to begin at a site before
Managing Uncertainty
Managing uncertainty is the unifying
a crucial aspect of the effective use of field analytical methods (see
Spotlight 4, The Triad Approach, on the next page). Although not all
field analytical technologies employ screening methodologies (for
example, field-portable gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/
MS) is a definitive analytical methodology), many such technologies
(for example, immunoassays) do. In general, data produced by
screening analytical methods will present more analytical uncertainty
than data produced by definitive methods. However, that fact in
itself does not make definitive methods necessarily "better" than
screening methods. Definitive methods are not fool-proof -
interferences or other problems can cause a marked increase in their
analytical uncertainty. On the other hand, a number of strategies can
be used to minimize the analytical uncertainty inherent in screening
methods. Such strategies include the selection of appropriate quality
assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures to ensure that the
data are of known and documented quality. Most important, all field
analytical technologies offer the unique ability to cost-effectively
manage the largest single source of decision error—sampling
representativeness—an ability that is not available when requirements
to use fixed laboratory methods discourage proactive management
of sampling uncertainty.
a common understanding
and acceptance of the
decisions have been
established increases the
likelihood that the cleanup
process will be inefficient,
resulting in delays and
inefficient use of time and money.
Further, decision makers must understand that there is
uncertainty in all scientific and technical decisions (see below
for more information about uncertainty). Clearly defining and
accepting uncertainty thresholds before making decisions about
the site remedy will build consensus. Decisions also should be
made in the context of applicable regulatory requirements,
political considerations, budget available forthe project, and
time constraints.
Understand the Technology
Athorough knowledge of atechnology's capabilities and
limitations is necessary to secure its acceptance. All
technologies are subject to limitations in performance.
Planning forthe strengths and weaknesses of atechnology
maximizes understanding of its benefits and its acceptance.
"Technology approvers, "typically regulators, community
groups, and financial service providers are likely to be more
receptive of a new approach if the proposer provides a clear
explanation of the rationale for its use and demonstrates
confidence in its applicability to specific site conditions and
needs. This latter point underscores the importance of carefully
selecting an experienced, multidimensional team of
professionals who have the expertise necessary to plan,
present, and implement the chosen approach.
Streamlining site activities, whether site assessment, site
investigation, removal, treatment, or monitoring, requires a
flexible approach. Site-specific conditions, including various
physical conditions, contamination issues, stakeholder needs,
uses of the site, and supporting decisions, require that all
decision makers understand the need for flexibility. Although
presumptive remedies, standard methods, applications at other
sites, and program guidance can serve as the basis for
designing a site-specific cleanup plan and can help decision
makers avoid "starting from scratch" at each site, decision
makers should be wary of depending too heavily on "boilerplate
language" and prescriptive methodologies, as well as standard
operating procedures and "accepted" methods. While such
tools provide excellent starting points, they lackthe flexibility to
meet site-specific goals. To ensure an efficient and effective
cleanup, the actual technology approach, whether established
or innovative, must focus on decisions specific to the site.
38
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
fp THE TRIAD APPROACH:
Streamlining Site Investigations and Cleanup Decisions
The modernization of the collection, analysis,
interpretation, and management of data to support
decisions about hazardous waste sites rests on a three-
pronged "triad" approach. The introduction of new
technologies in a dynamic framework allows project
managers to meet clearly defined objectives. Such an
approach incorporates the elements described below.
Systematic planning is a common-sense approach to
assuring that the level of detail in project planning
matches the intended use of the data being collected.
Once cleanup goals have been defined, systematic
planning is undertaken to chart a course for the project
that is resource effective, as well
as technically sound and
defensible to reach these
project-critical goals. A team of
multidisciplinary, experienced
technical staff works to translate
the project's goals into realistic
technical objectives. The
conceptual site model (CSM) is
the planning tool that organizes
the information that already is
known about the site; the CSM
helps the team identify the
additional information that must
be obtained. The systematic
planning process ties project
goals to individual activities
necessary to reach these goals
by identifying data gaps in the
CSM. The team then uses the
CSM to direct the gathering of needed information,
allowing the CSM to evolve and mature as work
progresses at the site.
A dynamic work plan approach relies on real-time data
to reach decision points. The logic for decision-making
is identified and responsibilities, authority, and lines of
communication are established. Dynamic work plan
implementation relies on and is driven by critical project
decisions needed to reach closure. It uses a decision-
tree and real-time uncertainty management practices to
reach critical decision points in as few mobilizations as
possible. Success of a dynamic approach depends on
the presence of
experienced staff in the
field empowered to
make decisions based on
the decision logic and
their capability to deal with
new data and any unexpected
issues, as they arise. Field staff maintain close
communication with regulators or others overseeing the
project during implementation of dynamic work plans.
The use of on-site analytical tools, rapid sampling
platforms, and on-site interpretation and management of
data makes dynamic work plans
possible. Such analytical tools are
among the key streamlined site
investigation tools because they
provide the data that are used for
on-site decision making. The
tools are a broad category of
analytical methods and equipment
that can be applied at the sample
collection site. They include
methods that can be used
outdoors with hand-held, portable
equipment, as well as more
rigorous methods that require the
controlled environments of a
mobile laboratory (transportable).
During the planning process, the
team identifies the type, rigor, and
quantity of data needed to answer
the questions raised by the CSM.
Those decisions then guide the design sampling
modifications and the selection of analytical tools.
For more information, see the resources numbered
42, 53, 69, 77, 78, and 121 in the Index of Resources
beginning on page 1-1.
A Quick Look
Integrates systematic planning, dynamic
work plans, and on-site analytical tools to
meet project and program goals.
Takes advantage of real-time results and
data assessment to guide additional
sampling and to minimize mobilization to
reach decision points.
Focuses site activities on project goals,
ratherthan on analytical methods, thereby
saving time and money and fostering
betterdecisions.
Demonstrated to complete projects faster,
cheaper, and with greater regulatory
satisfaction than the traditional phased
approach to data collection.
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 39
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
DATA QUALITY AND REPRESENTATIVENESS:
Keys to Cost-Effective Site Investigation
The information value of data depends heavily upon the
interaction among sampling and analytical designs in
relation to the intended use of the data, the site-specific
context surrounding that intended use, and the
associated quality control. When this concept is
understood, on-site analytical tools can play a major role
in making environmental decisionmaking more efficient,
defensible, and cost-effective. In today's industrial and
regulatory climate, practitioners are often required to
make immediate decisions that are based on dependable,
representative data. The term
"representative data" means that
there is some stability in the
samples and assurance of data
density. On-site analytical
techniques offer that type of
decision-making assurance to the
user of the data.
A Quick Look
Data quality is the function of the data's
information content and its ability to
represent the true state of a site.
Increased sampling
efficiencies, fostered by
the use of innovative
technologies, allow more
targeted sample collection
efforts that minimize the
handling of samples that
provide little value in meeting site-
specific data quality objectives (DQO). Increased field
analytical productivity is obtained when the type of analysis
performed is targeted so that more
samples can be analyzed each day,
thereby bringing about more rapid
site characterizations and verification
of cleanup.
Brownfields investigations require
innovative approaches that are
faster, cheaper, and better than
common practices. The faster
approach reduces sample
turnaround times, facilitates in-
field decision-making, and
minimizes deployment time of crew and equipment. The
more cost-effective approach is used to reduce analytical
costs, field-labor costs, and completion times. The better
approach results in data quality that is as accurate as that
attained by fixed off-site laboratories and refined data
analysis based on the results of on-site screening.
Brownfields sites are essentially industrial sites at which
people will want to take measurements, determine the
extent of contamination, and institute a plan. The sampling
designs for such sites will be dynamic in nature; therefore,
the real-time analytical capability offered by field-portable
instruments will be essential in successful sampling. Data
representativeness will become increasingly important in
site characterization and remediation projects in the near
future because it supports the dynamic approach by
providing real-time feedback. With liability an important
consideration at brownfields sites, managing uncertainties
and having representative data that reflect the true site
conditions is critical to property transactions. Data
representativeness can be used successfully to generate
scientifically sound data that are able to support defensible
project decisions at substantial cost savings over the cost
of current practices.
Data representativeness is the measure
of the degree to which samples can be
used to estimate the characteristics of
the true state of a hazardous waste site.
Brownfields are considered an "up-and-
coming" application in which data
quality and representativness will play
an important role.
When data needs are articulated
clearly, and when a number of
modern sampling and analytical
options are available, it is possible to
optimize data collection so that the
information produced is accurate for
its intended purpose while still being
less costly than previously possible.
When applied carefully, on-site
analytical methods offer
representative and decision-quality data with the added
benefits of increased sampling density and real-time
availability of results.
Although traditional approaches have tended to focus
heavily on the capabilities of definitive analytical methods,
the effect of sampling error on the representativeness of
monitoring and measurement activities also should be
considered. It is important to determine how data obtained
from quality assessment samples can be used to identify
and control in the measurement process sources of
sampling error and uncertainties.
By increasing sampling density, made possible and cost-
effective with the use of new sampling and analytical tools,
decision makers can reduce uncertainty and increase
understanding of the true conditions of a site. This should
increase comfort among site owners, buyers, regulators, and
surrounding communities, as well as reduce the likelihood
of errors and omissions that could negatively affect the site
later.
For more information, see the resources numbered
33, 34, and 69 in the Index of Resources beginning on
page 1-1.
40
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
CLEANUP OPTIONS
Evaluate Applicable Cleanup
Alternatives for the Site
The review and analysis of cleanup alternatives rely on
the data collected during the site assessment and
investigation phases, which are discussed in the
preceding sections of the Road Map. The purpose of
evaluating various technologies is to identify those
technologies for their capability to meet specific
cleanup and redevelopment objectives. For
brownfields sites, it also is important to consider
budget requirements and to maintain a work schedule
so that the project remains financially viable.
The role of institutional controls, such as easements,
covenants, zoning restrictions, and the posting of
advisories to increase community awareness of the
environmental conditions and cleanup activities at the
site, also are important considerations during this
phase. See Spotlight 11, Understanding the Role of
Institutional Controls at Brownfields Sites, for more
information about institutional controls.
What Do We Need To Know?
I
Factors that should be considered during
the evaluation of cleanup options include:
1. How do we determine the appropriate and
feasible level of cleanup? Are there federal, state,
local, and tribal requirements for cleanup?
Should risk-based approaches be considered as
an option for assessing exposure (see the
definition of risk-based corrective action [RBC A]
in Appendix B, List of Acronyms and Glossary of Key
Terms)? Are there prescribed standards for
cleanup? Are there provisions for using
presumptive remedies?
2. What factors are associated with the
implementation of cleanup options? Will the
cleanup facilitate or hinder the planned
redevelopment? How long will cleanup take?
What will cleanup cost? What are the short-term
and long-term effects of the cleanup technologies
under consideration?
3. Are the cleanup options compatible with regional
or local planning and development goals and
requirements? Can redevelopment activities
(such as construction or renovation of buildings)
be conducted concurrently with cleanup?
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 41
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
4. How can the community participate in the review
and selection of cleanup options? Are the options
acceptable in light of community concerns about
protection during cleanup and reuse of the site?
What environmental standards should be
considered to ensure that community stakeholders
are satisfied with the outcome and process of
cleanup, given the intended reuse?
5. Is there a need for institutional controls after
cleanup? Are proposed institutional controls
appropriate in light of community concerns and
access to and use of the property? Will
institutional controls facilitate or hinder
development? What plans, including financial
assurances, are being made to ensure that
institutional controls remain in place as long as
contamination is present?
6. What options are available to monitor the
performance of cleanup technologies?
How Do We Find The Answers?*
The process of reviewing and analyzing cleanup
options and technology alternatives usually follows
these steps:
• Establish goals for cleanup that consider the end use
and use either published state or federal guidelines,
RBCAs, or site-specific risk assessment results
• Educate members of the community about the site
cleanup selection process and actively involve
them in decision making
• Review general information about cleanup
technologies to become familiar with those that
may be applicable to a particular site:
- Use the resources in this publication
- See Appendix A, Table A-3, Remedies for Types of
Contaminants Found at Typical Brownfields Sites,
for examples of technologies that are appropriate
for specific types of contaminants
- Conduct searches of existing literature that
further describes the technology alternatives
- Analyze detailed technical information about the
applicability of technology alternatives
• Narrow the list of potential technologies that are
most appropriate for addressing the contamination
identified at the site and that are compatible with
the specific conditions of the site and the proposed
reuse of the property:
- Network with other brownfields stakeholders and
environmental professionals to learn about their
experiences and to tap their expertise
- Determine whether sufficient data are available to
support identification and evaluation of cleanup
alternatives
- Evaluate the options against a number of factors,
including toxicity levels, exposure pathways,
associated risk, future land use, and economic
considerations
- Analyze the applicability of a particular
technology to the contamination identified
at a site
- Determine the effects of various technology
alternatives on redevelopment objectives
Continue to work with appropriate regulatory
agencies to ensure that regulatory requirements
are addressed properly:
- Consult with the appropriate federal, state, local,
and tribal regulatory agencies to include them in
the decision-making process as early as possible
- Contact the EPA regional brownfields
coordinator to identify and determine the
availability of EPA support programs
Integrate cleanup alternatives with reuse
alternatives to identify potential constraints on
reuse and time schedules and to assess cost and
risk factors
To provide a measure of certainty and stability to
the project, investigate environmental insurance
policies, such as protection against cost overruns,
undiscovered contamination, and third-party
litigation, and integrate their cost into the project
financial package
Select an acceptable remedy that not only
addresses the risk of contamination, but also best
meets the objectives for redevelopment and reuse
of the property and is compatible with the needs of
the community
Communicate information about the proposed
cleanup option to brownfields stakeholders,
including the affected community
* Please note that the Road Map seeks to answer technology selection questions and is not intended to provide a response to each
procedural question identified.
42
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Where Do We Find Help To Our
Technology Questions?
Examples of resources that will assist in reviewing and
analyzing cleanup options are listed on the next page.
Information about the availability of electronic resources
—whether the item is found on the Road Map's
accompanying CD-ROM or on various web sites — also
is provided. Appendix D, How to Order Documents,
provides complete ordering information for documents
that are not available on the CD-ROM or on the Internet.
A. Resources for Cleanup Options
The documents listed below are resources that provide
general information about the availability of technology
resources in the form ofbibliographies, status reports, and
userguides.
ASTM Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective
Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites
(E1739-95el)
Order online at www.astm.org
The purpose of the guide is to define RBCA as a
process for assessing and responding to a petroleum
release in a manner that ensures the protection of
human health and the environment. The guide will
assist brownfields decision makers who wish to
become familiar with another approach that can be
used to assess environmental risk at a site, in
conformity with applicable federal, state, local, and
tribal regulations. The diversity and flexibility of a
RBCA approach is defined and discussed, and the
tiered approach of the process is summarized.
Although the RBCA process is not limited to a
particular site, the guide emphasizes the use of RBCA
in response to releases of petroleum. Examples of
RBCA applications also are provided. The guide,
available at $45 per copy, can be downloaded from
the ASTM web site or ordered by telephone at 610-
832-9585 or by facsimile at 610-832-9555.
Breaking Barriers to the Use of
Innovative Technologies: State
Regulatory Role in Unexploded
Ordnance Detection and Characterization
Technology Selection
View or download the pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The report, published in 2000 by the ITRC workgroup,
contains an analysis of case studies from states
having experience in remediating unexploded
ordnance (UXO)-contaminated sites. The report
supports early and meaningful state regulatory
involvement in the selection of innovative
unexploded ordnance characterization and
remediation technologies. The report also offers
recommendations to ensure the appropriate
participation of states in the selection of technologies
for characterizing and remediating UXO-
contaminated sites.
Brownfields Technology Primer:
Requesting and Evaluating Proposals
That Encourage Innovative Technologies
for Investigation and Cleanup
(EPA 542-R-01-005)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The BTSC prepared this primer to assist site owners,
project managers, and others preparing RFPs to solicit
support in conducting activities to investigate and
clean up contaminated sites. It is specifically
intended to assist those individuals in writing
specifications that encourage contractors and
technology vendors to propose options for using
innovative characterization and remediation
technologies at brownfields sites. The primer also
provides information, from a technology perspective,
to guide review teams in their evaluations of
proposals and the selection of qualified contractors.
Citizen's Guides to Understanding Innovative
Treatment Technologies
View or download pdffiles on the Road Map CD-ROM
The guides are prepared by EPA to provide site
managers with nontechnical outreach materials that
they can share with communities in the vicinity of a
site. The guides present information on innovative
technologies that have been selected or applied at
some cleanup sites, provide overviews of the
technologies, and present success stories about sites
at which innovative technologies have been applied.
Spanish versions of the guides are forthcoming. The
guides contain information on the following subjects:
- Bioremediation (EPA 542-F-01-001)
- Chemical oxidation (EPA 542-F-01-013)
- Fracturing (EPA 542-F-01 -015)
- In situ flushing (EPA 542-F-01-OW
- Insitu thermal treatment methods (EPA 542-F-01-012)
- Monitored natural attenuation (EPA 542-F-01-004)
- Permeable reactive barriers (EPA 542-F-01-005)
- Phytoremediation (EPA 542-F-01-002)
- SVE and air sparging (EPA 542-F-01-006)
- Soil washing (EPA 542-F-01-008)
- Thermal desorption (EPA 542-F-01-003)
• Background • Introduction • Before You • Site • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 43
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Clean-Up Information Home Page on the World
Wide Web
View on line at http://clu-in.org
The Internet site provides information about
innovative treatment technologies and site
characterization technologies to the hazardous waste
remediation community. CLU-IN describes programs,
publications, and other tools for EPA and other
federal and state personnel, consulting engineers,
technology developers and vendors, remediation
contractors, researchers, community groups, and
individual citizens. Information about issues related
to site remediation also is provided: technology
descriptions and status reports; technology selection
tools; programs and organizations; TIO perspectives;
and publications.
Cost Estimating Tools and Resources for Addressing
the Brownfields Initiatives (EPA 625-R-99-001)
Order on line at www.epa.gov/ncepihom
The guide is one in a series of publications designed to
assist communities, states, municipalities, and the
private sector to address brownfields sites more
effectively. The guide, which is designed to be used
with the three guides for specific types of sites -
Technical Approaches to Characterizing and Cleaning
Up Automotive Repair Sites Under the Brownfields
Initiative, Technical Approaches to Characterizing and
Cleaning Up Iron and Steel Mill Sites Under the
Brownfields Initiative, and Technical Approaches to
Characterizing and Cleaning Up Metal Finishing Sites
Under the Brownfields Initiative - provides information
about cost estimating tools and resources for
addressing cleanup costs at brownfields sites. Many
decision makers at brownfields sites may choose to
assign the preparation of cost estimates to consultants
who are experienced in the cleanup of hazardous
waste sites; however, it benefits those decision makers
to be able to provide guidance to their consultants and
to understand the process sufficiently well to provide
an informed review of the estimates prepared. The
guide provides general information about the cost
estimation process and includes summaries of various
types of estimates. The guide also outlines the process
of developing "order of magnitude" cost estimates.
Information about resources, databases, and models
also is provided.
Directory of Technology Support Services to
Brownfields Localities (EPA 542-B-99-005)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The directory provides information about
EPA offices, non-government organizations funded
by EPA, and other federal agencies that may be able to
provide expertise to assist in the selection of
technologies for use in characterizing and cleaning
up brownfields properties.
EPA REACH IT Online Searchable Database
Viewonlineatwww.epareachit.org
EPA REACH IT will assist those involved in
brownfields projects to evaluate and select applicable
remediation technologies, as well as to gather
detailed information about the providers of those
technologies. An online searchable database, EPA
REACH IT provides comprehensive, up-to-date
information about more than 1,300 remediation
technologies that can be accessed through the guided
and advanced search capabilities of the system.
Examples of sites at which a particular type of
technology has been implemented also are presented.
The information is based upon data submitted by
vendors and project managers for EPA, DoD, DOE,
and state agencies, as well as information provided
by suppliers of innovative technologies. EPA REACH
IT is accessible only through the Internet.
Evaluation of Selected Environmental Decision
Support Software (DSS)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
Developed by DOE's Office of Environmental
Management, the report evaluates DSS, computer-
based systems that facilitate the use of data, models,
and structured decision processes in making
decisions related to environmental management. The
report evaluates 19 such systems through the
application of a rating system that favors software
that simulates a wide range of environmental
problems. It includes a glossary of terms and a
statement of the rationale for the selection of various
aspects of the performance of the DSS for evaluation.
Evaluation of Subsurface Engineered Barriers at
Waste Sites (EPA 542-R-98-005)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The report provides a national retrospective analysis
of the field performance of barrier systems, as well as
information that could be useful in developing
guidance on the use and evaluation of such systems.
The report contains information about the design,
application, and performance of subsurface
engineered barriers.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
(FRTR) Case Studies
View on line at www.frtr.gov/cost
The case studies provide the user information about
specific remedial technology applications. FRTR case
studies are developed by DoD, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force
44
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
(USAF), DOE, DOT, and EPA. The case studies focus
on full-scale and large field demonstration projects
and include information on site background,
description of the technology, cost and performance of
technology application, and lessons learned.
Technologies include innovative and conventional
treatment technologies for contaminated soil,
groundwater, and solid media. Users can search the
case studies by groups of contaminants, media, waste
management practices that contribute to
contamination, and treatment systems.
Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and
Performance Information for Remediation Projects
(EPA 542-B-98-007)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The document recommends the types of data that
should be collected to document the performance and
cost of future cleanups. The guide specifies data
elements for 13 conventional and innovative cleanup
technologies: soil bioventing, soil flushing, soil vapor
extraction, groundwater sparging, in situ
groundwater remediation, pump-and-rreat
technologies, composting, incineration, land
treatment, slurry-phase soilbioremediation, soil
washing, stabilization, and thermal desorption. The
document provides site managers with a standard set
of parameters for documenting completed
remediation projects. A number of federal agencies
have made commitments to using the guidance to
collect data for full-scale cleanups, demonstrations,
and treatability studies.
Innovative Remediation and Site
Characterization Technologies Resources
(EPA542-C-01-001)
Order on line at www.epa.gov/ncepihom
Produced by EPA's TIO, the CD-ROM
contains resources that provide information to help
federal, state, and private-sector site managers
evaluate site assessment and cleanup alternatives.
The ability to gain access to resources that provide
information about innovative site characterization
and remediation technologies will increase
understanding of those technologies and of the cost
and performance factors related to them. Such
understanding is essential to the consideration of
those technologies for use in addressing
contamination at hazardous waste sites. Several
resources included on the CD-ROM also are available
on the Road Map CD-ROM.
Innovative Remediation Technologies:
Field-Scale Demonstration Projects in
North America, 2nd Edition
(EPA 542-B-00-004)
View or download pdffiles on the Road Map CD-ROM
A revision and expansion of EPA's publication,
"Completed North American Innovative Technology
Demonstration Projects," is now available in an
online, searchable database of ongoing and
completed field demonstrations of innovative
remediation technologies sponsored by government
agencies working in partnership with private
technology developers to bring new technologies into
the hazardous waste remediation marketplace.
Public Technology Inc/s
BrownfieldsTech.org
View on line at www.brownfieldstech.org
The web site, hosted by PTI, and
sponsored in part by EPA's TIO, provides information
about characterization and remediation of
brownfields. The site focuses on the demonstration,
dissemination, and promotion of innovative
characterization and remediation technologies
suitable for use at brownfields sites to help local
governments increase efficiencies and reduce costs
associated with brownfields redevelopment. The site
highlights "hot" technologies that currently are
proving themselves in the field, provides case studies
that introduce the user to cities that are experiencing
succession employing innovative site
characterization and remediation technologies,
profiles of local government leaders who are
employing brownfields remediation technologies to
good effect, and provides links to other key web sites.
Rapid Commercialization Initiative (RCI) Final
Report for an Integrated In Situ Remediation
Technology (Lasagna™) (DOE/OR/22459-1)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
This report describes demonstration results for the
Lasagna™ process, a process which uses established
geotechnical methods to install degradation zones in
contaminated soil and electrosmosis to move the
contaminants back and forth through these zones
until treatment is completed.
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide, Version 3.0 (PB98-108590)
View on line at www.frtr.gov/matrix/
The document is intended to assist site remediation
project managers to narrow the field of remediation
alternatives and identify potentially applicable
technologies for more detailed assessment and
evaluation before remedy selection. The document
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 45
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
I STATE DRYCLEANER REMEDIATION PROGRAMS:
An Innovative Approach to Cleanup
State-mandated programs have had a major impact on
turning former drycleaner sites into marketable properties.
With support from EPA's TIO, the State Coalition for
Remediation of Drycleaners (SCRD) was established in
1998 to provide a forum for the exchange of information
and the discussion of implementation issues related to
established state drycleaner programs, share information
and lessons learned, and encourage the use of innovative
technologies in the remediation of drycleaner sites. The
coalition is made up of representatives of states that have
established drycleaner remediation programs, including
Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Kansas,
Minnesota, Missouri, North
Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
nonaqueous phase
liquids (DNAPL), a great
concern at drycleaner
sites, including ultraviolet
fluorescence and
hydrophobic dyes, also have
been demonstrated to be effective.
As described in the report, the methods most commonly
used to reduce solvents present in soil include excavation,
soil vapor extraction (SVE), and bioventing, and natural
attenuation, air sparging, and multi-phase extraction for
groundwater.
A Quick Look
A subgroup of the coalition has
focused its efforts on conducting
research about state programs and
the use of innovative technologies
to assess and remediate sites
contaminated with drycleaning
solvents. Its 1999 report, "Study
of Assessment and Remediation
Technologies for Drycleaner Sites"
indicates that a variety of
technologies are being used at
drycleaner sites. For example, site
characterization techniques include
active and passive sampling of soil-gas, direct push
techniques, geophysical techniques, and monitoring wells
and borings. Several technologies for detecting dense
KEY RESOURCE
Drycleaners use chlorinated solvents,
particularly tetrachloroethene (PCE), in
their operations, and have contributed to
contamination of soil and groundwater at
many brownfields sites.
Contaminants likely to be found at
drycleaner sites include: PCE,
trichloroethene (TCE), and cis 1,2-
dichloroethene(cis-DCE).
Innovative technologies are of particular
benefit to small drycleaner sites because
limited funding for cleanup of such sites
is often an issue.
Even though many of the state
programs are fairly new and most
have very limited budgets, they have
been effective in performing the
necessary tasks in a timely manner.
To date, the states' drycleaning
programs have performed at least
236 site assessments and 100
remedial actions and closed 16
drycleaning sites. The numbers are
increasing rapidly as the drycleaner
programs in each state continue to
mature.
For more information, see the
resources numbered 62, 115,
132, and 133 in the Index of Resources beginning on
page 1-1.
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners (SCRD) Internet Site
View on line at www.drydeancoalition.org
The Internet site, supported by EPA's TIO, provides extensive information about state remediation
programs and resources related to the remediation of drycleaner sites. Descriptions of state programs
and points of contact in each of the 11 member states are provided. Publications, regulations, and
other documents are identified as well. Brownfields stakeholders involved in the assessment and
cleanup of drycleaner sites in Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin may be particularly interested in the detailed
information provided about programs in those states. Profiles of the remediation of specific sites
throughout the U.S. are intended to assist users, particularly state officials, in making more informed
decisions related to the remediation of sites in their states, and, when possible, to provide additional
resources. Publications developed by the SCRD, as well as state and federal resources pertinent to
issues associated with drycleaner sites, can be viewed on line or downloaded at no charge.
46
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
REMEDIATING MANUFACTURED GAS PLANTSITES:
Emerging Remediation Technologies
From the early 1800s through the mid-1900s,
manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites were operated
nationwide to produce gas from coal or oil for lighting,
heating, and cooking. The gas manufacturing and
purification processes conducted at the plants yielded
gas plant residues that included tars, sludges, lampblack,
light oils, spent oxide wastes, and other hydrocarbon
products. Although many of the by-products were
recycled, excess residues remained at MGP sites. The
residues contain polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH),
petroleum hydrocarbons,
benzene, cyanide, metals, and
phenols. The base
contaminant, coal tar, is
composed of a complex mixture
of PAHs that generally exhibit
low volatility, low solubility, and
low biodegradability.
Consequently, those
components are difficult to treat.
to apply innovative
approaches that benefit
from economies of
scale. Former MGP sites
offer an ideal opportunity
to apply tools and
technologies that expedite site
characterization and source remediation.
A Quick Look
Although MGPs have closed and most
have been demolished, such facilities
have left a legacy of environmental
contamination.
Releases of coal tars, oils, and
condensates produced in MGP plants
contributed to a wide range of
contamination with PAHs, phenols,
benzene, and cyanide.
There are an estimated 3,000 to
5,000 former MGP sites across
the country; some of those sites
still are owned by the
successors to the utilities that
founded them. MGPs typically
were built on the outskirts of
cities that since have grown.
Today, therefore, the under-used sites often are located
in inner city areas, many of which are being considered
for redevelopment under the brownfields program. The
redevelopment of MGP sites for reuse can help the utility
industry turn potential liabilities into assets. For example,
in the city of Fort Myers, Florida, a former MGP site was
redeveloped into a private, nonprofit museum and
aquarium called the Imaginarium.
As the business environment has spurred companies to
reassess land holdings and better manage environmental
concerns, the MGP sites have become a central focus.
Many companies are investigating and remediating such
sites. The similarities in the configuration of the sites and
in the contaminants found at them provide opportunities
As utilities discover more MGP sites,
they are faced with the need to identify
cost-effective, environmentally safe, and
innovative approaches forthe
characterization and remediation of those
sites.
Thermal desorption has been used
successfully to remediate soils that
contain MGP wastes (for example,
lampblack and coal tar), achieving
reductions of more than 98 percent in
concentrations of PAHs; total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH);
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and
xylene (BTEX) compounds; and
cyanide. Performance data have
demonstrated that less than 10 parts
per billion (ppb) of residual PAHs and
cyanides can be achieved through the
application of thermal desorption.
Other technologies that have proven
successful in remediating MGP
wastes include co-burning in utility
boilers, recycling in road beds, in
situ bioremediation, landfarming,
and soil washing.
Because former MGP sites are prevalent and represent a
large area of unused land with complex remedy needs,
new technologies are being encouraged and field-tested
to demonstrate their technical feasibility. Opportunities
exist to demonstrate and refine new assessment and
remediation technologies that can assist in expediting
cleanup processes that can place these contaminated sites
back into productive use.
For more information, see the resource numbered
120 in the Index of Resources beginning on page 1-1.
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 47
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of
innovative and conventional technologies for
remediation of soils, sediments, sludges, groundwater,
surface water, and air emissions and off-gases; it
focuses primarily on demonstrated technologies.
Treatment, containment, separation of wastes, and
enhanced recovery technologies are covered.
Additional references and information resources also
are included.
Reuse Assessments: A Tool to Implement
the Superfund Land Use Directive
(OSWER Directive 9355.7-06P)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The memorandum, signed June 4,2001 by EPA's
OERR, presents information that supports the
development of assumptions related to future land
use when making remedy selection decisions for
response actions conducted at Superfund sites. The
Reuse Assessment guide, which provides information
about the collection and evaluation of information for
developing assumptions, and the Superfund Land
Use Directive, which provides basic information
about developing and using future land use
assumptions to support Superfund remedial actions,
are included as attachments to the directive.
Site Remediation Technology Inf oBase:
A Guide to Federal Programs, Information
Resources, and Publications on
Contaminated Site Cleanup Technologies,
Second Edition (EPA 542-B-00-005)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
Prepared by the member agencies of the FRTR, the
guide identifies programs, resources, and
publications of the federal government related to
technologies for the cleanup of contaminated sites.
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program: Technology Profiles, Tenth Edition
View on lineal www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/profiles3.htm
The SITE documents, contained in three separate
volumes, provide profiles of more than 150
demonstration, emerging, and monitoring and
measurement technologies currently being evaluated.
Each technology profile identifies the developer and
process name of the technology, describes the
technology, discusses its applicability to waste, and
provides a project status report and contact
information. The profiles also include summaries of
demonstration results, if available.
The following volumes are available:
- Demonstration Program, Volume 1
(EPA540-R-99-500A)
- Emerging Technology Program, Volume 2
(EPA 540-R-99-500B)
- Monitoring and Measurement Program, Volume 3
(EPA 540-R-99-500C)
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative
Site Remediation Technologies, Third Edition (EPA
542-B-93-009, PB94-144565)
Orderonlineatwww.epa.gov/ncepihom
The document is a compilation of abstracts that
describe field demonstrations of innovative
technologies that treat hazardous waste at
contaminated sites. The abstracts are information
resources that hazardous waste site project managers
can use to assess the availability and practicability of
innovative technologies for treating contaminated
groundwater, soils, and sludge. The document
describes more than 110 demonstrations, sponsored
by federal agencies, in six different technology
categories, involving the use of innovative
technologies to treat soil and groundwater. A matrix
that lists the demonstration categories, the type of
contaminant, media that can be treated, and the
treatment setting for each innovative technology
demonstrated also is provided in the document.
Tank RACER Software Program
Viewonlineatwww.epa.gov/swerustl/tnkracrl.htm
Tank Remedial Action Cost Engineering and
Requirements (RACER) is a Windows™-based system
that provides fast, accurate, and comprehensive cost
estimates for cleanups at petroleum and UST sites.
The software estimates costs for cleanups on a site-
specific basis for all phases of remediation, including
site assessment, remedial design, remedial action,
operation and maintenance, tank closure, and site
work and utilities, as well as the costs of using
alternative technologies, such as air sparging,
bioremediation, bioventing, groundwater extraction
wells, land farming, natural attenuation, SVE, and
thermal desorption. The software was developed
under an interagency agreement between the US AF
and EPA. A newer version, Tank RACER 2001, is
now available. Visit the web site identified above for
more information.
TechKnow™ Database
View online at www. techknow. org
Developed by the Global Network of Environment &
Technology (GNET), TechKnow is an online,
interactive database which allows users to gain
access to and provide information about innovative
and sustainable technologies. For each technology
profiled, a summary, development information,
status, and cost is provided. The Internet site also
48
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
provides contact information for the technologies.
Users may access the TechKnow database at the
Internet site identified above. There is no cost to use
TechKnow, but users are required to register on
GNET.
Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup:
Annual Status Report (ASR) (Tenth
Edition) (EPA 542-R-01-004)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The ASR documents, as of summer 2000, the status of
treatment technology applications at more than 900
soil and groundwater cleanup projects in the
Superf und program, selected RCRA corrective action
sites, and DOE and DoD sites. The report updates the
projects included in the ASR ninth edition and
provides information about projects obtained from 96
records of decision (ROD) signed in 1998 and 1999.
The report examines both source control technologies
(addressing soil, sludge, sediment, and other solid
wastes) and innovative groundwater treatment
technologies. For the most frequently selected
technologies in the Superfund remedial program, the
report analyzes selection trends over time,
contaminant groups treated, quantity of soil treated
(for soil treatment technologies), and the status of
project implementation.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
Preferred Alternatives Matrices (PAMs)
Viewonlineatwww.em.doe.gov/define
Developed by DOE, the PAMs web site
provides access to evaluations of site
characterization and remediation technologies
preferred by DOE on the basis of the types of
contaminants and contaminated media selected.
PAMs was developed by DOE's Office of
Environmental Restoration (EM-40) to assist decision
makers in selecting the most appropriate cleanup
alternatives for remediation, waste processing, and
decommissioning of sites. It provides a tool for field
personnel to use in focusing remedy selection;
expediting implementation of preferred alternatives;
eliminating the cost of excessive or redundant
treatability studies; and allowing preselection of
effective, low-cost remediation alternatives.
B. Site-Specific Resources for Cleanup Options
Listed below are survey reports on the application of
innovative technologies to specific contaminants and site
types.
Assessment of Phytoremediation as an In-
Situ Technique for Cleaning Oil-
Contaminated Sites
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The document, which is based on a review
of the relevant literature, provides examples of the
phytoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons and
discusses the key mechanisms of that process, as well
as the special considerations involved in
phytoremediation of petrochemicals. The document
also discusses the benefits, limitations, and costs of
phytoremediation, compared with alternative
approaches, including natural attenuation,
engineering, and bioremediation.
Bioremediation and Phytoremediation of
Pesticide-Contaminated Sites, The
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The technology assessment report
discusses the use of bioremediation and
phytoremediation for the cleanup of sites
contaminated with pesticides. It provides
information about the current status of the two
technologies to federal and state agencies, consulting
engineering firms, private industries, and technology
developers.
Catalog of EPA Materials on USTs (EPA
510-B-00-001)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The booklet provides an annotated list of UST
materials and includes ordering information. Many
of the informational leaflets, booklets, videos, and
software items listed are designed to provide UST
owners and operators with information to help them
comply with the federal UST requirements.
EPA ORD Brownf ields Guides
View on line at www.epa.gov/ncepihom/nepishom
The series of publications are designed to assist
communities, states, municipalities, and the private
sector to address brownfields sites more effectively.
The guides provide decision makers, such as city
planners, private sector developers, and others who
are involved in redeveloping brownfields, with a
better understanding of the technical issues involved
in assessing and cleaning up automotive repair sites,
iron and steel mill sites, and metal finishing sites.
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 49
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
After reading the guides, the user will have a better
understanding of activities commonly carried out at
such sites and how those activities might cause the
release of contaminants into the environment. The
guides also provide information about the types of
contaminants often found at such sites; a discussion
of site assessment, screening and cleanup levels, and
cleanup technologies; a conceptual framework for
identifying potential contaminants; information about
developing a cleanup plan; and a discussion of issues
and special factors that should be considered when
developing plans and selecting technologies. The
following guides are available:
- Technical Approaches to Characterizing and
Cleaning Up Automotive Repair Sites Under the
Brownfields Initiative (EPA 625-R-98-008)
- Technical Approaches to Characterizing and
Cleaning Up Iron and Steel Mill Sites Under the
Brownfields Initiative (EPA 625-R-98-007)
- Technical Approaches to Characterizing and
Cleaning Up Metal Finishing Sites Under the
Brownfields Initiative (EPA 625-R-98-006)
Groundwater Cleanup: Overview of
Operating Experience at 28 Sites
(EPA542-R-99-006)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The report summarizes information about the
groundwater remediation systems at 28 sites
throughout the U.S. at which completed or ongoing
groundwater cleanup programs are in place. It
includes details about design, operation, and
performance of the systems; capital, operating, and
unit costs of the systems; and factors that potentially
affect the cost and performance of the systems. The
report compares and contrasts data from the case
studies to assist those involved in evaluating and
selecting remedies for groundwater contamination at
hazardous waste sites. Of the 28 projects presented in
the case studies, 24 are Superfund remedial actions,
one is a Superfund removal action, one is a cleanup
conducted by state authorities, and two are corrective
actions taken under RCRA. The sites represent a range
of site types and hydrogeological conditions.
How To Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies
for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for
Corrective Action Plan Reviewers
(EPA 510-B-94-003, S/N 055-000-00499-4)
Order on line at www.epa.gov/ncepihom
The guide was developed to assist state regulators in
efficiently and confidently evaluating corrective
action plans (CAP) that incorporate alternative
technologies. The guide, written in nontechnical
language, takes the reader through the steps involved
in reviewing a CAP. Each chapter presents a
comprehensive description of the technology, an
explanation of how it works, and a flow chart that
illustrates the decision points in the process;
information that will help the regulator evaluate
whether a given technology will clean up a given site
successfully; discussion and instruction to help the
regulator evaluate whether a CAP is technically
sound; a check list to assist the regulator in
determining whether or not the CAP includes all the
steps necessary; and a list of references.
IDC Home Page
View on line at www.getf. org/dnaplguest
The web site is sponsored by the Interagency
Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL)
Consortium (IDC). It reports on the IDC's effort to
evaluate and compare the cost and performance of
three innovative remediation technologies for the
treatment of DNAPLS. The three technologies are
being applied for the treatment of trichloroethylene
(TCE) at Launch Complex 34 at Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station, Florida. The three technologies being
demonstrated in side-by-side plots at the launch area
are chemical oxidation with the use of potassium
permanganate, six-phase heating, and dynamic
underground stripping.
Innovative Measures for Subsurface Chromium
Remediation: Source Zone, Concentrated Plume,
and Dilute Plume; Environmental Research Brief
(EPA600-S-97-005)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
This report describes innovative measures for
addressing chromium contamination in each of the
three areas described in the title. For the source zone,
surfactant-enhanced chromium extraction is
evaluated; for the concentrated plume,
polyelectrolyte-enhanced ultrafilrrarion is evaluated;
and for the dilute plume, the effectiveness of the
permeable barrier wall is evaluated.
MTBE Fact Sheet #2: Remediation of MTBE-
Contaminated Soil and Groundwater
(EPA510-F-98-002)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
Developed by EPA's OUST, the fact sheet describes
the physical and chemical characteristics of methyl
tert butyl ether (MTBE) and identifies alternative
technologies for remediating it.
50
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
N ATO/CCMS Pilot Study Evaluation of
Demonstrated and Emerging
Technologies for the Treatment of
Contaminated Land and Groundwater
(Phase III) 2000 Annual Report (EPA 542-R-01-001)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The volume presents updated summaries of
information about 29 projects, as well as reports on
legislative, regulatory, programmatic, and research
issues related to contaminated land in each
participating country.
Pay-For-Performance Cleanups: Effectively
Managing Underground Storage Tank Cleanups
(EPA 510-B-96-002)
View online at www. epa.gov/ncepihom/nepishom
Pay-f or-perf ormance cleanup agreements allow users
to pay contractors a fixed price as measurable
environmental goals are reached, rather than paying
using a more typical time-and-materials contract.
This document focuses on the experience of the UST
Bureau of the New Mexico Environment Department
and is supplemented by the experience and ideas of
representatives of other states, contractors, and EPA.
The document is intended as a starting point for
owners of USTs to use in designing pay-for-
performance cleanup programs. The document first
identifies the advantages of pay-for-performance
cleanup agreements, such as cost and time savings. It
then explains how to implement a pay-for-
performance cleanup program. Many tips for
ensuring the success of pay-for-performance
agreement programs are provided. It also presents
information about enlisting the support of
stakeholders, such as that of state technical and
funding staff, government auditors, legislators and
legislative staff, and cleanup contractors. In addition
to providing instructions for constructing such an
agreement, the document provides an example of how
to calculate performance payments.
Presumptive Response Strategy and Ex-Situ
Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Ground
Water at CERCLA Sites (EPA 540-R-96-023)
Order on line at www.epa.gov/ncepihom
Produced by EPA's OERR, the guidance defines
EPA's presumptive response strategy and discusses
technologies for the ex situ treatment component of a
groundwater remedy. It also explains how EPA
intends to exercise its discretion in implementing the
National Contingency Plan (NCP).
Rapid Site Assessment Applied to the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection's Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup
Program
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The 1997 report describes the use of rapid site
assessments to characterize soil and groundwater
contamination at dry cleaning facilities. Conducted
under the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection's Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program
(DSCP), the rapid site assessments are an innovative
approach used to address site assessment and
cleanup of contaminated drycleaning facilities. The
paper describes legislative, administrative, and
technical aspects of the program that permit drastic
reductions in the time and costs associated with
assessing soil and groundwater contamination for
this site type.
Recent Developments for In Situ Treatment of
Metal-Contaminated Soils (EPA 542-R-97-004)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The document provides hazardous waste cleanup
professionals with an update on the status of four
available and promising technologies for in situ
remediation of soil contaminated with heavy metals:
electrokinetics; phytoremediation; soil flushing; and
solidification and stabilization. The report is
intended to assist in screening new technologies early
in the remedy evaluation and selection process.
Resource for MGP Site Characterization
and Remediation: Expedited Site
Characterization and Source Remediation
at Former Manufactured Gas Plant Sites
(EPA542-R-00-005)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The document provides current information about
useful approaches and tools being applied at former
MGP sites to the regulators and utilities that are
engaged in characterizing and remediating these
sites. The document outlines site management
strategies and field tools for expediting site
characterization at MGP sites; presents a summary of
existing technologies for remediating MGP wastes in
soils; provides sufficient information about the
benefits, limitations, and costs of each technology,
tool, or strategy for comparison and evaluation; and
provides, through case studies, examples of the ways
in which those tools and strategies can be
implemented at MGP sites.
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 51
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
State Coalition for Remediation of
Drycleaners (SCRD) Internet Site
Viewonlineatwww.drycleancoalition.org
The Internet site, supported by EPA's TIO,
provides extensive information about state
remediation programs and resources related to the
remediation of drycleaner sites. Descriptions of state
programs and points of contact in each of the 11
member states are provided. Publications,
regulations, and other documents are identified as
well. Brownfields stakeholders involved in the
assessment and cleanup of drycleaner sites in Florida,
Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and
Wisconsin may be particularly interested in the
detailed information provided about programs in
those states. Profiles of the remediation of specific
sites throughout the U.S. are intended to assist users,
particularly state officials, in making more informed
decisions related to the remediation of sites in their
states, and, when possible, to provide additional
resources. Publications developed by the SCRD, as
well as state and federal resources pertinent to issues
associated with drycleaner sites, can be viewed on
line or downloaded at no charge.
State Programs to Clean Up Drycleaners
Viewonlineatwww.drycleancoalition.org/
survey
Prepared by the SCRD with the support of
EPA's TIO, the report presents a survey
that focuses on three principal areas: general
administrative issues, fee and fund solvency issues,
and benefits associated with the various programs.
The report provides information about the number of
sites in the various state programs, the remediation
stage of each site, the system for setting priorities
among sites, the fee system, the fee structure, average
fees, deductibles and insurance coverage, revenues
collected, fund balances, benefits of participation,
limit of funds, and requirements of facility owners
and operators. Detailed tables that present data
gathered during the survey are included as an
appendix to the report.
Treatment Experiences at RCRA
Corrective Actions (EPA 542-F-00-020)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The fact sheet summarizes information about the use of
treatment technologies at 30 RCRA corrective action
sites. It focuses on ongoing or completed cleanups of
contaminated soil or groundwater at RCRA sites for
which key information, such as the type of technology
used and the point of contact, was available. The sites
illustrate the types of cleanups conducted at RCRA
corrective action sites; they are not intended to be
representative of all cleanups conducted under RCRA.
Treatment Technology Performance and Cost Data
for Remediation of Wood Preserving Sites
(EPA625-R-97-005)
Order on lineat www.epa.gov/ttbnrmrl/625/R-97/005.htm
The document presents information about applicable
treatment alternatives for the remediation of soil and
groundwater at wood preserving sites. The document
provides decision makers with a better understanding
of technologies suitable for cleaning up such sites.
Background information about the wood preserving
industry in general is presented, as well as
information about contaminants commonly found at
wood preserving sites, such as PCPs, PAHs, dioxins
and furans, and inorganic compounds. The
document describes a number of technologies that
have been used to remediate wood preserving sites;
treatability and case studies also are presented.
Additional sources of information are provided.
Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund,
RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage
Tank Sites
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The policy directive, issued April 21,1999, provides
guidance to the staff of EPA, the public, and the
regulated community on how EPA intends to exercise
its discretion in implementing national policy on the
use of monitored natural attenuation for the
remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater at
sites regulated under the programs of EPA's OSWER.
C. Technology-Specific Resources for Cleanup
Options
The documents listed below provide detailed information
about specific innovative technologies and the application
of those processes to specific contaminants and media in the
form of engineering analyses, application reports,
technology verification and evaluation reports, and
technology reviews.
Anaerobic Biodegradation of BTEX in Aquifer
Material; Environmental Research Brief
(EPA 600-S-97-003)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The study focuses on anaerobic biodegradation of
BTEX isomers in aquifer material from two petroleum-
contaminated aquifers. Two different techniques
were used to evaluate the ability of indigenous
microorganisms to anaerobically degrade BTEX and
to estimate the rate of degradation.
52
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Analysis of Selected Enhancements for Soil Vapor
Extraction (EPA 542-R-97-007)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The report provides an engineering analysis of, and
status report on, selected enhancements for SVE
treatment technologies. The report is intended to
assist project managers who are considering an SVE
treatment system by providing then with an up-to-
date report on the status of enhancement
technologies; an evaluation of each technology's
applicability to various site conditions; a presentation
of cost and performance information; a list of vendors
that specialize in the technologies; a discussion of the
relative strengths and limitations of the technologies;
recommendations of factors to be kept in mind when
considering the enhancements; and a compilation of
references. The five enhancement technologies
discussed in the report are air sparging, dual-phase
extraction, directional drilling, pneumatic and
hydraulic fracturing, and thermal enhancement.
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated
Sediments (ARCS) Program: Guidance for In Situ
Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments
(EPA 905-B-96-004)
View on line at www.epa.gov/glnpo/sediment/iscmain/
index.html
Published by EPA's Great Lakes National Program
Office, the document provides technical guidance for
subaqueous, in situ capping as a remediation technique
for contaminated sediments. Descriptions of the
processes, identification of the design requirements, and
a recommended sequence for design also are provided.
Bioremediation in the Field Search System (BFSS)
Version 2.1
View or download database on the Road Map CD-ROM
The searchable database provides information about
sites at which bioremediation is being tested or
implemented or at which cleanup by bioremediation
has been completed. The database covers sites being
addressed under CERCLA, RCRA, TSCA, as well as
those being addressed under the UST Program.
Information is available about location, media,
contaminants, technology, cost, and performance.
Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvent
Contaminated Groundwater
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The report is intended to provide a basic summary of
in situ treatment technologies for groundwater
contaminated with chlorinated solvents. It includes
information gathered from a range of currently
available sources, including project documents,
reports, periodicals, Internet searches, and personal
communication with parties involved in the use of the
technologies.
Brownfields Technology Primer:
Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for
Site Cleanup
(EPA542-R-01-006)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The BTSC developed this document to provide an
educational tool for site owners, project managers,
and regulators to help evaluate the applicability of
the phytoremediation process atbrownfields sites.
The primer explains the types of biological processes
involved in phytoremediation; provides examples of
the sites and contaminants where phytoremediation
has been applied; and discusses technical
considerations in selecting and designing
phytoremediation systems, activities necessary to
operate and maintain phytoremediation systems, and
examples of estimated potential cost savings from
using phytoremediation versus more conventional
treatment processes. The primer also provides a
comprehensive list of other resources that are
available to assist decision makers in evaluating
phytoremediation as an option for cleaning up
contaminated sites.
California Environmental Technology Certification
Program - California Certified Technologies List
View on line at www.calepa.ca.gov/calcert
The Cal/EPA Environmental Technology
Certification program Internet site provides the user
access to the California Certified Technologies List.
The document provides a list of technologies and
their respective vendors that have been certified by
the state of California. Certification is granted to
technologies on the basis of an independent, third-
party verification of the technology's performance
and ability to meet regulatory specifications and
requirements. Developers and manufacturers define
quantitative performance claims for their technologies
and provide supporting documentation. Cal/EPA
reviews that information and, when necessary,
conducts additional testing to verify the claims.
Technologies, equipment, and products that are
proven to work as claimed receive official state
certification.
CLU-IN Technology Focus
View on line at http://clu-in.org
Technology Focus, a section of EPA TIO's
CLU-IN site, provides a compilation of the
most relevant information sources about a
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 53
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
range of remediation technologies. Grouped by
specific technology, the resources provide a
description, information about the applications and
use of the technology, relevant engineering and
regulatory guidance, and links to training sources and
additional references. Information about the following
technologies are available: air sparging,
bioremediation of chlorinated solvents, bioventing/
biosparging, fracturing, groundwater circulating wells,
in situ flushing, in situ oxidation, multi-phase
extraction, natural attenuation, permeable reactive
barriers, phytoremediation, soil vapor extraction, and
thermal desorption.
Cost Analyses for Selected Groundwater
Cleanup Projects: Pump-and-Treat
Systems and Permeable Reactive Barriers
(EPA542-R-00-013)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
Developed on the basis of case studies prepared by
EPA, other members of the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable, and the Remediation
Technologies Development Forum, the report presents
the results of an analysis of groundwater cleanup
costs for pump-and-treat systems and permeable
reactive barriers (PRB) at 48 sites. Targeted for site
managers, technology developers, and users, as well
as others involved in groundwater remediation
efforts, the report provides detailed information about
the costs of groundwater cleanup technologies and
factors that affect those costs. Of the 48 sites, 32 were
pump-and-treat systems and 16 were PRBs.
Engineered Approaches to In Situ
Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents:
Fundamentals and Field Applications
(EPA542-R-00-008)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The report provides an overview of in situ
bioremediation for the remediation of chlorinated
solvents in contaminated soil and groundwater. It
describes mechanisms for the degradation of
chlorinated solvents, enhancements of such
mechanisms by the addition of various materials and
chemicals, design approaches, and factors to consider
when selecting and using the technology. The report
also presents a list of vendors of the technology and
nine case studies of field applications.
Engineering and Design: Adsorption
Design Guide (DG1110-1-2)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The guide, published by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, provides practical guidance for
the design of liquid- and vapor-phase devices for the
adsorption of organic chemicals. The adsorptive
media addressed include granular activated carbon
(GAC) and other alternative adsorption media, such
as powdered activated carbon (PAC) and non-carbon
adsorbents. It addresses various types of adsorption
media, applicability, use of various adsorption
process technologies, design of equipment and
ancillary components, availability, advantages,
disadvantages, regeneration methods, costs, and
safety considerations.
EPA Region 5 Monitored Natural Attenuation Report
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The report describes a natural attenuation field study
conducted jointly by EPA Region 5, the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, and Amoco
Corporation that has been underway since October
1994.
Field Applications of In Situ Remediation
Technologies: Chemical Oxidation
(EPA542-R-98-008)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The document describes recent pilot demonstrations
and full-scale applications of chemical oxidation
processes that treat soil and groundwater in place or
increase the solubility and mobility of contaminants
to improve their removal by other remediation
technologies.
Field Applications of In Situ Remediation
Technologies: Ground-Water Circulation Wells
(EPA542-R-98-009)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The report is one in a series of reports that document
recent pilot demonstrations and full-scale applications
that treat soil and groundwater in situ or increase the
solubility and mobility of contaminants to improve
their removal by other remediation technologies. It is
hoped that the information provided will facilitate
more frequent consideration of new, less costly, and
more effective technologies to address the problems
associated with hazardous waste sites and petroleum
contamination.
54
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS AT
BROWNFIELDS SITES:
Technology Options for Tank Remediation
Of the estimated 450,000 brownfields sites in the U.S.,
approximately 100,000 to 200,000 contain abandoned
underground storage tanks (LIST) or are affected by leaks
of petroleum from such tanks. With so many sites
requiring remediation, EPA is promoting faster, more
effective, and less costly alternatives to established
cleanup methods. Although established technologies,
such as pump-and-treat systems or the excavation and
disposal in a landfill, have proven
effective and are frequently used,
innovative technologies may be
applicable for cleanup of USTs.
A Quick Look
EPA's Office of Underground
Storage Tanks (OUST) has worked
with EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) to foster
development of innovative site
assessment and cleanup
technologies, such as field
measurement techniques, soil
vapor surveying, vacuum-
enhanced free product recovery,
active and passive bioremediation,
and monitored natural attenuation.
OUST continues to encourage
scientifically sound, rapid, and
cost-effective corrective action at
UST sites. It also encourages the
use of expedited site assessments
as a means of streamlining the corrective action process,
improving data collection, and reducing the overall cost of
remediation.
KEY RESOURCE
EPA's OUST is
undertaking the
USTFields initiative to
address petroleum
contamination from abandoned
tanks generally excluded from EPA's Brownfields Economic
Redevelopment Initiative. The initiative also is intended to
take advantage of the many advances in brownfields work
that can be applied at the
numerous USTFields sites. Like
the brownfields program, the
USTFields program provides
grants to states for community pilot
projects to plan cleanups, eliminate
contamination of groundwater,
protect public health, and allow the
future economic development of
such sites. When grants are
awarded, special consideration is
given to cities that are experiencing
problems related to contamination
withMTBE. EPA believes the
USTFields Initiative will
demonstrate how to make better
use of limited resources to clean
up sites affected by petroleum
contamination, thereby fostering
the redevelopment of those sites.
USTs are present at many brownfields sites
because the owners have closed their
businesses and do not have the funds
necessary to remove tanks or properly
clean up the tanks.
Contaminants likely to be found at UST sites
include petroleum hydrocarbons; gasoline;
diesel fuel; methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE); benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
andxylene(BTEX);JP-4jetfuels;and
solvents.
The USTFields Initiative, a new program of
EPA's OUST, focuses attention on
abandoned or underused industrial and
commercial properties at which
redevelopment is complicated by
environmental contamination originating
from USTs.
For more information, see the resources numbered
8,11, 23, 52, 93,101,140,155, and 156 in the Index
of Resources beginning on page 1-1.
EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks Internet Site
View on line at www.epa.gov/oust
Hosted by EPA's OUST, the Internet site provides resources and tools to assist owners and operators of USTs
and brownfields stakeholders to better assess their options for the operation, maintenance, and cleanup of
USTs. Information and guidance about technologies suitable for cleaning up releases from UST systems are
provided, as well as details about current federal UST regulations and UST program priorities, including
specific details about the USTFields Initiative. Points of contact in each of the EPA regional offices also are
identified. An extensive number of UST publications can be viewed on line or downloaded at no charge. In
addition, information about state-sponsored UST programs, including links to state Internet sites, is provided
*onO\JST ssiteatwww.wpa.gov/swerustl/states/index.htm. i
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 55
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
PHYTOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY:
A Growing Field
Phytoremediation includes the use of plants and natural
processes to remediate or stabilize hazardous wastes in
soil, sediments, surface water, or groundwater. By acting
as filters or traps, plants can degrade organic pollutants,
extract metal contaminants, or contain and stabilize the
movement of contaminants. Phytoremediation first was
tested actively at waste sites in the early 1990s, and use of
the approach has been increasing. Phytoremediation has
been implemented on a full or demonstration scale at
more than 200 sites nationwide. As the number of
projects grows, new information about the cost and
performance of Phytoremediation will become available.
Phytoremediation provides many
advantages because it has the
potential to work at a broad variety of
sites and on myriad contaminants
involving potentially less costs than
other options. Types of sites at
which Phytoremediation has been
applied with some degree of
success in cleaning up the sites
include: pipelines, industrial and
municipal landfills, agricultural
fields, wood treatment sites, military
installations, fuel storage tank
farms, army ammunition plants,
sewage treatment plants, and mining
sites.
A Quick Look
An aesthetically pleasing, passive
cleanup technology powered by
solar energy.
A technology that is most useful at
sites at which shallow, low levels of
contamination are present.
A cost-effective technology that has
the potential to clean up a wide
variety of brownfields sites.
Can also be used for other functions
related to site cleanup, such as
erosion control and runoff control.
Phytoremediation is being tested and evaluated for its
effectiveness in treating a wide array of contaminants
found at brownfields sites. Current results indicate that
plants have the potential to enhance remediation of
petroleum hydrocarbons; benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene,
andxylene (BTEX); polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH); polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB); chlorinated
solvents; heavy metals; and pesticide waste. In addition
to providing a long-term solution, Phytoremediation is an
excellent option for providing an interim solution for
containing the spread of contaminants and beginning the
treatment process. Phytoremediation does not require the
excavation of soil, and its application may require only
minimal material handling. Further, Phytoremediation can
have a positive effect on the aesthetic character of a site,
may be an attractive alternative for use at large sites at
which other methods of remediation are not cost-effective
or practical, and can be used in conjunction with other
technologies when the redevelopment and land use plans
for the site include the
use of vegetation.
Decision makers at
brownfields sites at
which there are relatively
low concentrations of
contaminants (that is, organics,
nutrients, or metals) over a large cleanup area and in
shallow soils, streams, and groundwater should consider
the use of Phytoremediation. Phytoremediation also may
be considered for use in conjunction with other
technologies when redevelopment
and land use plans for a site include
the use of vegetation. Among the
types of plants used for
Phytoremediation are: hybrid poplar,
willow, and cottonwood trees; rye,
Bermuda, sorghum, and fescue
grasses; legumes (clover, alfalfa, and
cowpeas); aquatic and wetland plants
(water hyacinth and bullrush); and
hyperaccumulators for metals (such
as alpine pennycress for zinc or
alyssum for nickel). If levels of
contamination are so high that the
concentrations of contaminants are
toxic to plants (phytotoxic),
Phytoremediation may not be an
effective treatment option.
Because Phytoremediation has been used primarily on a
demonstration-scale basis at this time, site owners may
find it necessary to show its potential applicability and
efficacy on a site-specific basis. Doing so may require
an up-front commitment of time and resources to
demonstrate that the performance of Phytoremediation is
comparable to the performance of traditionally accepted
technology options. However, such an investment
ultimately could save site owners significant amounts of
money when they clean up their properties for
redevelopment.
For more information, see the resources numbered
19, 25, 28, 87, 88,106,107, and 108 in the Index of
Resources beginning on page 1-1.
56
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Field Applications of In Situ Remediation
Technologies: Permeable Reactive Barriers (EPA
542-R-99-002)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
One of a series of reports that summarize pilot
demonstrations and full-scale applications of
technologies that treat soil and groundwater, the
document presents profiles of a number of applications
of PRBs. Each profile identifies, to the extent the
information is available, the name of the site, its
location, its characteristics, the principal contaminants
present, the installation date of the PRB, the type of
construction, the costs of design and construction, the
reactive materials used, and the results achieved. The
profiles also discuss lessons learned and lists a point
of contact for obtaining further information. A
bibliography of articles and documents related to PRBs
also is included.
Geophysical Techniques to Locate
DNAPLs: Profiles of Federally Funded
Projects (EPA 542-R-98-020)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The document provides to researchers and
practitioners a status report on federal projects that
are using noninvasive geophysical techniques to
locate DNAPLs in the subsurface.
Groundwater Issue Paper: Steam Injection for Soil
and Aquifer Remediation (EPA 540-S-97-505)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The document contains detailed information on how
steam injection can be used to recover organic
contaminants from the subsurface, the contaminant
and subsurface conditions for which the process may
be appropriate, and general design and equipment
considerations.
Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis
Center (GWRTAC) Technology Reports
View or download reports on the Road Map CD-ROM
Developed by the Ground-Water Remediation
Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC), a variety of
reports about groundwater technologies and how
they work are available to assist decision makers in
reviewing technology options and assessing a
technology's applicability to a particular site. The
Technical Overview Reports are intended to provide a
general overview and introduction to selected
groundwater technologies. More detailed information
and technical analyses is provided in the Technical
Evaluation Reports which provide, for specific
technologies, comprehensive descriptions of the
technology and performance information; information
about its applicability and cost; discussion of
regulatory and policy requirements and issues; and a
summary of lessons learned. The Technology Status
Reports are summary documents which provide
information about the status of specific groundwater
technologies or topics. Examples of some of the topics
covered include: air sparging; bioslurping; DNAPL
remediation; electrokinetics; hydraulic, pneumatic,
and blast-enhanced fracturing; in situ bioremediation;
in situ chemical treatment; in situ flushing; permeable
reactive barriers; phytoremediation; and surfactants
and cosolvents.
Hydraulic Optimization Demonstration
for Groundwater Pump-and-Treat
Systems
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The report, contained in two separate volumes,
presents a screening analysis that users can use to
determine whether they can achieve significant cost
savings by altering key aspects of an existing or
planned pump-and-rreat-system. The first volume,
intended for a broad audience, describes the
screening analysis, which uses spreadsheets to allow
quick and inexpensive cost comparison of
alternatives under consideration for use at a site, in
terms of net present value (NPV). The second volume,
targeted for a more technical audience, provides case
study examples of the application of hydraulic
optimization at three sites. Site-specific factors, as
well as the steps involved to conduct the analysis, are
described in detail. The following volumes are
available:
- Volume I: Pre-Optimization Screening (Method and
Demonstration (EPA 542-R-99-011A)
- Volume II: Application of Hydraulic Optimization
(EPA 542-R-99-011B)
In Situ Electrokinetic Remediation of
Metal Contaminated Soils Technology
Status Report (SFIM-AEC-ET-CR-99022)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The report, published by the U.S. Army
Environmental Center for the Environmental Security
Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), provides
an overview of the current developmental status of
elecrrokinetic remediation for metals-contaminated
soils. The report identifies concerns about the in situ
application of the technology and issues that require
further investigation. It also presents the results of a
field demonstration conducted at Naval Air Weapons
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 57
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Station at Point Mugu to illustrate concerns about the
in situ application of the technology at its current
stage of development.
In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The document provides a technology assessment
about in situ treatment technologies applicable for
cleanup of contaminated sediments. It is intended to
provide federal agencies, states, consulting
engineering firms, private industries, and technology
developers with information on the current status of
this technology.
ITRC Phytoremediation Decision Tree
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The document, produced by the ITRC
workgroup, provides a tool that can be used to
determine whether phy to remediation can be effective
at a given site. It is designed to complement existing
phytoremediation documents. It allows the user to
use basic information about a specific site, through a
flow chart layout, to decide whether
phytoremediation is feasible at that site.
Introduction to Phytoremediation
(EPA600-R-99-107)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The document provides a tool for regulators, owners,
neighbors, and managers to use in evaluating the
applicability of phytoremediation to a site. The
document defines terms and provides a framework for
use in developing an understanding of
phytoremediation applications. It is a compilation of
information obtained through research and
remediation work that has been done to date.
Leak Detection for Landfill Liners: Overview of
Tools for Vadose Zone Monitoring
(EPA542-R-98-019)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The report provides a basic summary of tools in current
use for detection of leaks in landfill liners. It includes
information gathered from a range of currently
available sources, including project documents,
reports, periodicals, Internet searches, and personal
communication with parties involved in such efforts.
Monitored Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated
Solvents (EPA 600-F-98-022)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The fact sheet, written for a nonscientific audience and
intended to assist federal, state, and local regulators in
educating the public about complex environmental
issues, explains what the term "monitored natural
attenuation" (MNA) means when it is used to describe
a potential strategy for remediating a contaminated
site. It also describes the various physical, chemical,
and biological processes of natural attenuation that
may take place at a site contaminated with chlorinated
solvents and explains how decision makers evaluate
the role of MNA at a contaminated site.
Monitored Natural Attenuation of Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (EPA 600-F-98-021)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The fact sheet, written for a nonscientific audience
and intended to assist federal, state, and local
regulators in educating the public about complex
environmental issues, explains what the term "MNA"
means when it is used to describe a potential strategy
for remediating a contaminated site. It also describes
the various physical, chemical, and biological
processes of natural attenuation that may take place
at a site contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons
and explains how decision makers evaluate the role
of MNA at a contaminated site.
MTBE Treatment Case Studies and
Web Site
View on line at www.epa.gov/oust/mtbe/
mtberem.htm
The searchable web site provides data on completed
and ongoing applications of MTBE treatment for
drinking water and contaminated media. The case
studies describe technologies (both in situ and ex situ
aboveground) that have been used to treat MTBE in
groundwater, soil, and drinking water. Technologies
included are air stripping and sparging, carbon
adsorption, bioremediation (in situ and ex situ), in
situ chemical oxidation, soil vapor and dual-phase
extraction, and pump-and-treat systems. The 18 full
case studies are from 2 tolO pages long and vary in
level of detail, depending on the data available. The
web site also provides summary information about 20
additional treatment applications.
Multi-Phase Extraction: State of the Practice
(EPA542-R-99-004)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The report describes the use of multi-phase extraction
(MPE) for the remediation of contaminated soil and
groundwater, focusing primarily on the application of
MPE at sites at which contamination with halogenated
VOCs is present. The report describes MPE technology
and the various configurations used for it, indicates the
58
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
types of site conditions to which MPE is applicable,
and discusses the advantages and potential
limitations of the use of MPE at such sites. In addition,
the report provides information about vendors of MPE
and case studies that summarize cost and performance
data on applications of the technology at three sites.
Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated
Solvents in Groundwater: Principles and
Practices
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The industrial members of the Bioremediarion of
Chlorinated Solvents Consortium (bioconsorrium) of
the RTDF prepared the document to disseminate up-
to-date scientific information about natural
attenuation of chlorinated solvents. The mission of
the RTDF bioconsortium is to accelerate the
development of cost-effective bioremediation
processes for degrading chlorinated solvents and to
achieve public and regulatory acceptance of those
processes as safe and effective. The document
provides a framework to be used in evaluating
natural attenuation of chlorinated VOCs.
Natural Attenuation of MTBE in the
Subsurface under Methanogenic
Conditions (EPA 600-R-00-006)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The document presents a case study conducted at the
former Fuel Farm Site at the U.S. Coast Guard Support
Center at Elizabeth City, North Carolina. The case
study is intended to answer several questions: Can
MTBE be biodegraded under methanogenic
conditions in groundwater that was contaminated by
a fuel spill? Will biodegradation produce lower
concentrations of MTBE than those required under
regulatory standards? Is the rate of degradation in
the laboratory adequate to explain the distribution of
MTBE in the groundwater at the field site? What is
the relationship between the degradation of MTBE
and the degradation of the BTEX compounds? What
is the rate of natural attenuation at the source area?
Overview of the Phytoremediation of Lead
and Mercury
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The report assesses the current state of
phytoremediation as an innovative technology and
discusses its usefulness and potential in the
remediation of lead- and mercury-contaminated soils
found at hazardous waste sites. The advantages and
disadvantages, limitations, current status, projected
market, and environmental concerns associated with
this new and innovative technology are discussed.
Case studies involving the phytoremediation of lead
and mercury detailing bench and full-scale projects
are also provided.
Permeable Reactive Barrier Technologies for
Contaminant Remediation (EPA 600-R-98-125)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The document provides information about treatable
contaminants, design, feasibility studies, and
construction options. Summaries of several current
installations also are provided.
Permeable Reactive Barriers for
Inorganics
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The report provides a summary of
information about permeable reactive barriers for
inorganics and a discussion of the current status of
such barriers. It contains information gathered from a
range of currently available sources, including project
documents, reports, periodicals, the Internet, and
personal communication with parties involved in
projects that use the barriers.
Permeable Reactive Subsurface Barriers for the
Interception and Remediation of Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon and Chromium (VI) Plumes in Ground
Water (EPA 600-F-97-008)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
Prepared by EPA's ORD, the document discusses the
use of barrier walls employing zero-valent iron as the
reactive substrate for treating groundwater
contaminated with chlorinated hydrocarbons or
chromium.
Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil
and Groundwater at Hazardous Waste
Sites (EPA 540-S-01-500)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The issue paper was developed for the EPA Regional
Ground Water Forum. The paper provides a concise
discussion of the processes associated with the use of
phytoremediation as a cleanup or containment
technique for remediation of hazardous waste sites,
sediment, groundwater, surface water, and
wastewater.
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 59
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Phytoremediation of TCE in Groundwater Using
Populus
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The document provides a basic understanding of
phytoremediation for shallow groundwater and
reports on the status of the technology.
Phytoremediation Resource Guide
(EPA 542-B-99-003)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The document aids decision makers in reviewing the
applicability of phytoremediation extraction
treatment technologies. The document also provides
access information on electronic resources and
hotlines; cites relevant federal regulations; and
provides abstracts of more than 100 pertinent
resources, such as bibliographies, guidance
documents, workshop proceedings, overview
documents, study and test results, and test designs
and protocols. Included is a phytoremediation
treatment technology resource matrix that compares
the documents by technology type, affected media,
and contaminants. The guide also provides detailed
information on how to obtain the publications listed.
Phytotechnology Technical and
Regulatory Guidance (Phyto-2)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The document, published by the ITRC, provides
technical and regulatory guidance to help regulators
understand, evaluate, and make informed decisions
about phytotechnology proposals. The document
includes a description of phytotechnologies and
discussions of regulatory and policy issues, technical
requirements for phytotechnologies, and concerns on
the part of stakeholders. It also provides case studies
and technical references.
Presumptive Remedy: Supplemental Bulletin,
Multi-Phase Extraction Technology for VOCs in Soil
and Groundwater (EPA 540-F-97-004)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
Produced by EPA and the USAF, this fact sheet
provides an explanation of the technology and
explains how to determine whether multi-phase
extraction is applicable to a site contaminated with
VOCs in soil and groundwater. The fact sheet also
recommends MPE as a potential enhancement for SVE
in the presumptive remedy for sites with VOCs in soil.
Pump and Treat Ground-Water Remediation: A
Guide for Decision Makers and Practitioners
(EPA625-R-95-005)
View on lineal www.epa.gov/ORD/WebPubs/pumptreat
The guide provides an introduction to pump-and-
treat groundwater remediation by addressing such
questions as, "When is pump-and-treat an
appropriate remediation approach?" and "How can
the design and operation of a pump-and-treat system
be optimized and its performance measured?" The
guide is intended to provide decision makers with a
foundation for evaluating the appropriateness of
conventional or innovative approaches.
Solidification/Stabilization Use at
Superfund Sites (EPA 542-R-00-010)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The report provides to interested stakeholders, such
as project managers, technology service providers,
consulting engineers, site owners, and the general
public, the most recent information about
solidification/stabilization applications at Superfund
sites, as well as information about trends in the use of
the technology, specific types of applications, and
costs.
Study of Assessment and Remediation
Technologies for Drycleaner Sites
View on lineal www.drycleancoalition.org/tech
Prepared by the SCRD with the support of
EPA's TIO, the report presents the results of the
coalition's evaluation of assessment and remediation
technologies commonly used in cleaning up
drycleaner sites. The evaluation was based on the
results of responses to questionnaires sent to entities
involved in such cleanups in 1999. The report presents
those results in detail. An appendix provides
descriptions and brief evaluations of assessment
technologies frequently used at drycleaner sites.
Subsurface Containment and Monitoring
Systems: Barriers and Beyond (Overview
Report)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The document provides a summary of information
about subsurface barriers —vertical and horizontal —
with an emphasis on emerging and innovative
vertical barrier technologies. It also presents a
discussion of the current status of such barriers. The
report is not intended to be inclusive; it merely
provides an overview of the current work in the field
60
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
on subsurface barrier technologies drawn from
information gathered from a range of sources,
including project documents, reports, periodicals, the
Internet, and personal communication with parties
involved in projects that use such barriers.
Subsurface Remediation: Improving
Long-Term Monitoring and Remedial
Systems Performance Conference
Proceedings, June 1999 (EPA 540-B-00-002)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The document summarizes the presentations made
and workshops conducted during a conference on
improving long-term monitoring (LTM) and the
performance of remedial systems. The conference,
sponsored and developed by the FRTR, took place in
St. Louis, Missouri from June 8 through 11,1999. The
conference provided up-to-date information about
LTM and system optimization through presentations
and topical workshops.
Technical and Regulatory Requirements for
Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated
Solvents in Groundwater
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The report describes enhanced in situ bioremediation
(EISB) and examines the circumstances under which
its application is appropriate. It also discusses
related regulatory and policy issues, such as the ban
under RCRA on land disposal and technical
requirements for implementation of EISB. The report
was prepared by the Interstate Technology and
Regulatory Cooperation Workgroup.
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Program
View on line at www.epa.gov/safewater/
uic.html
The UIC Program works with state and local
governments to oversee underground injection of
waste to prevent contamination of drinking-water
resources. Among the wastes the UIC program
regulates are: more than nine billion gallons of
hazardous waste every year; more than two billion
gallons of brine from oil and gas operations every
day; and automotive, industrial, sanitary and other
wastes that are injected into shallow aquifers.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Hi till
Next Steps
After you have reviewed options for cleanup, you may
take any of the following courses of action:
Result of the Review of
Cleanup Options
Course of Action
The proposed
cleanup option
appears feasible.
Proceed to the CLEANUP
DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION
phase.
No cleanup option
appears feasible in
light of the
proposed
redevelopment
and land reuse
needs (such as
project milestones
and cost and
intended reuse).
Determine whether
revising the redevelopment
plan remains a practicable
option; if so, proceed to the
CLEANUP DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION
phase. If contamination
exists at considerable
levels, compliance with
other programs, such as
RCRA and Superfund,
may be required.
* Background • Introduction • Before You • Site • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 61
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
CLEANUP OF DENSE NONAQUEOUS PHASE LIQUIDS:
A Widespread Challenge
It is estimated that billions of dollars will be spent by the
private and public sector to clean up sites contaminated
with dense nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL). Denser
than water, DNAPLs tend to sink through the water table
and form a product pool on top of such impermeable
soil layers as clay. DNAPLs also can sink and migrate
laterally through fractures in bedrock. Numerous
variables influence fate and transport of DNAPLs in the
subsurface, and it can be difficult to predict the path
DNAPLs will take.
technologies. The
interagency agreement
supports the testing of
new and existing
technologies in side-by-
side demonstrations to
compare cost and performance
data that will be used to expedite regulatory acceptance
and use of innovative remedial technologies at other sites.
Because of these properties,
DNAPLs act as a continuing
source of contamination.
DNAPLs may cause serious,
long-term contamination of
groundwaterandposea
significant challenge to cleanup
of the site, especially for
established technologies such as
pump-and-treat. At sites with
significant DNAPL
contamination, pump-and-treat
systems may require several
hundreds of years to clean up
the groundwater.
Sites likely contaminated with
DNAPLs include drycleaning
facilities, wood preserving sites,
manufactured gas plants (MGP)
sites, and solvent sites (industrial
operations using large quantities
of solvents, as well as solvent
disposal/recovery sites).
To accelerate the development and implementation of
innovative technologies for remediating DNAPLs in
groundwater, a multiagency consortium - the
Interagency DNAPL Consortium (IDC) - was formed.
The consortium has developed a national action plan
that proposes collaborative efforts among federal
agencies, private sector entities, and responsible parties
in research and development, technology
demonstrations, and full-scale technology deployment
to reduce the perceived risk associated with innovative
A Quick Look
Most commonly occurring DNAPLs
typically are industrial chlorinated
solvents-trichloroethene (TCE),
tetrachloroethene (PCE), and carbon
tetrachloride (CCI4). Other prevalent
DNAPLs include creosote,
pentachlorophenol, and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) coal tars.
DNAPLs are present at 60 to 70 percent of
Superfund National Priorities List (NPL)
sites.
Among the numberof innovative
technologies that are demonstrating
success and providing promising results
in reducing contamination with DNAPLs
are dynamic underground stripping, six-
phase soil heating, chemical oxidation,
radio-frequency heating, and surfactant
flushing.
The IDC has selected three
technologies, dynamic
underground stripping, six-phase
soil heating, and chemical
oxidation with potassium
permanganate to demonstrate the
effectiveness and cost-efficiency
of those technologies in removing
DNAPLs. Technical reports to be
released in fall 2001 will
document the cost and
performance of the technologies.
The reports will be made available
to site owners, regulators, and
stakeholders to support decision
makers in making informed
decisions about the economics
and performance capabilities of
those technologies for the
remediation of DNAPLs.
For more information, see the
resources numbered 63, 76,
and 81 (specifically the case study titled "Geophysical
Investigation at Hazardous Waste Sites") in the Index
of Resources beginning on
page 1-1.
62
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
CLEANUP DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Develop and Carry Out Detailed
Cleanup Plans for the Site
This phase focuses on the design and implementation
of a cleanup plan to prepare the property for
redevelopment and reuse. The design of the cleanup
plan and implementation of the technology options
selected in the previous phase involves close
coordination with all other redevelopment efforts in
the immediate vicinity of the site.
What Do We Need To Know?
I
Factors that should be considered during the design
and implementation of cleanup activities include:
1. Are there federal, state, local, and tribal
requirements for the design, installation, and
monitoring of cleanup activities?
2. How will cleanup be monitored so that work
can be stopped when cleanup goals are
reached?
3. How best can the community participate in
the design and implementation of the
cleanup plan?
4. What can be done to protect the community
and other property during cleanup?
5. What are the tradeoffs between cost and meeting
redevelopment project deadlines? Can
redevelopment activities (such as renovation of
existing buildings and construction of roads and
sewage systems) be performed concurrently with
cleanup activities?
6. What are the long-term effects of the selected
technology on the liability or on the future use of
the site? What are the effects of a catastrophic
change to the environment (for example, a
hurricane or changes to the subsurface)?
7. Will long-term monitoring be required? If so, how
will it be managed?
8. Will institutional controls facilitate or hinder
redevelopment? Now? In the future?
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 63
-------
MAP TO TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR AND CLEANUP
How Do We Find The Answers?*
Where Do We Find Help To Our
Technology Questions?
Typical activities that may be conducted
during this phase include:
• Review all applicable federal, state, local, and
tribal regulatory guidelines and regulations to
determine all specific requirements, including
guidelines for state VCPs
• Continue to work with the appropriate regulatory
agencies to ensure that regulatory requirements
are being properly addressed:
- Consult with the appropriate federal, state, local,
and tribal regulatory agencies to include them in
the decision-making process as early as possible
- Contact the EPA regional brownfields coordinator
to identify and determine the availability of EPA
support programs
• Develop conceptual plans for cleanup and
subsequent monitoring that incorporate technology
options and consider the effect of any cleanup
activities on the proposed reuse of the property and
the schedule for project design or construction:
- Develop or review the schedule for completion of
the project
- Obtain a final amount for the funds available for
project development
- Coordinate the renovation and construction of
infrastructure with cleanup activities
- Coordinate activities with developers, financiers,
construction firms, and members of the local
community
• Establish contingency plans to address the
discovery of additional contamination during
cleanup, including tools such as environmental
insurance policies
• Develop procedures for community participation,
for example, by working with community advisory
boards or local redevelopment authorities
• Implement and monitor the cleanup plan and
performance of the technology selected
• Work with the state VCP program, if applicable,
and or county or local officials to facilitate the
placement and implementation of institutional
controls
* Please note that the Road Map seeks to answer technology selection questions and is not intended to provide a response to each
procedural question identified.
Listed below are examples of technology resources that
provide information about applicable regulatory
guidelines and regulations and community outreach
materials. In addition, technologies identified during
the site investigation phase may be appropriate to
monitor cleanup performance and close-out.
Information about the availability of electronic
resources — whether the item is found on the Road
Map's accompanying CD-ROM or on various web sites
— also is provided. Appendix D, How to Order
Documents, provides complete ordering information for
documents that are not available on the CD-ROM or on
the Internet.
A. Resources for Cleanup Design and
Implementation
The documents listed below are resources that provide
general information about the availability of technology
resources in the form of bibliographies and status reports.
Online searchable databases also are included.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Soil
Treatment Technologies: Suggested Operational
Guidelines to Prevent Cross-Media Transfer of
Contaminants During Cleanup Activities
(EPA530-R-97-007)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The document provides guidance for designing and
conducting soil remediation activities at RCRA and
other hazardous waste sites so that cross-
contamination is minimal. The document is expected
to assist in reducing exposure of workers to
contaminants by identifying the potential for transfer
from medium to medium and recommending control
mechanisms that could be applied during
implementation of treatment technologies for soil.
The BMPs are provided for seven technology
categories: containment technologies; soil washing;
thermal treatment; vapor extraction; bioremediarion;
incineration; and other physical and chemical
treatments. The document also provides case studies
and information about field validation activities that
EPA undertook at soil remediation sites in 1996 and
1997.
64
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Characterization of Mine Leachates and
the Development of a Ground-Water
Monitoring Strategy for Mine Sites
(EPA600-R-99-007)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The objective of the research project was to develop a
better understanding of the composition of mine
waste leachates and to identify cost-effective
groundwater monitoring parameters that could be
incorporated into a monitoring strategy to reliably
detect the migration of contaminants from hard-rock
mining operations.
Citizen's Guides to Understanding Innovative
Treatment Technologies
View or download pdffiles on the Road Map CD-ROM
The guides are prepared by EPA to provide site
managers with nontechnical outreach materials that
they can share with communities in the vicinity of a
site. The guides present information on innovative
technologies that have been selected or applied at
some cleanup sites, provide overviews of the
technologies, and present success stories about sites
at which innovative technologies have been applied.
Spanish versions of the guides are forthcoming. The
guides contain information on the following subjects:
- Bioremediation (EPA 542-F-01-001)
- Chemical oxidation (EPA 542-F-01-013)
- Fracturing (EPA 542-F-01 -015)
- In situ flushing (EPA 542-F-01 -011)
- Insitu thermal treatment methods (EPA 542-F-01-012)
- Monitored natural attenuation (EPA 542-F-01-004)
- Permeable reactive barriers (EPA 542-F-01 -005)
- Phytoremediation (EPA 542-F-01-002)
- SVE and air sparging (EPA 542-F-01-006)
- Soil washing (EPA 542-F-01-008)
- Thermal desorption (EPA 542-F-01-003)
Directory of Technology Support Services
to Brownfields Localities
(EPA 542-B-99-005)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The directory provides information about EPA offices,
non-government organizations funded by EPA, and
other federal agencies that may be able to provide
expertise to assist in the selection of technologies for
use in characterizing and cleaning up brownfields
properties.
EPA Directive: Initiatives to Promote Innovative
Technology in Waste Management Programs
(OSWER Directive 9380.0-25, EPA 542-F-96-012)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The policy directive, issued April 29,1996, describes
several initiatives to facilitate the testing,
demonstration, and use of innovative cleanup and
field measurement technologies and stresses EPA's
commitment to promoting the development and
commercialization of environmental technologies.
The initiatives under the directive place a high
priority on selecting innovative treatment and
characterization technologies, reducing impediments
to the development and use of innovative
technologies, and sharing the risks of using
innovative treatment technologies.
EPA REACH IT Online Searchable Database
Viewonlineatwww.epareachit.org
EPA REACH IT is an online searchable database that
assists brownfields stakeholders in obtaining
comprehensive information about technologies useful
for monitoring cleanup of brownfields sites. Specific
information about applicable technologies and their
service providers can be accessed readily using the
guided and advanced search capabilities of the
system. EPA REACH IT is accessible only through
the Internet.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
(FRTR) Case Studies
View on line at www.frtr.gov/cost
The case studies provide the user information about
specific remedial technology applications. FRTR case
studies are developed by DoD, US ACE, the U.S. Navy,
the U.S. Air Force (USAF), DOE, DOI, and EPA. The
case studies focus on full-scale and large field
demonstration projects and include information on
site background, description of the technology, cost
and performance of technology application, and
lessons learned. Technologies include innovative
and conventional treatment technologies for
contaminated soil, groundwater, and solid media.
Users also can search the case studies by groups of
contaminants, media, waste management practices
that contribute to contamination, and treatment
systems.
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 65
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
A Quick Look
UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF INST FUTIONAL
CONTROLS AT BROWNFIELDS SITES:
Major Concepts and Issues
Institutional controls are administrative and legal restrictions
or limitations placed on the use of a site to minimize potential
exposure to chemicals of concern or to prevent activities that
might interfere with the effectiveness of a response action.
Institutional controls are vital elements of response
alternatives because they influence and supplement the
physical component of the remedy to be implemented. On one
hand, the right combination of institutional controls is
necessary to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy; on the
other hand, the wrong mix of institutional controls can be a real
or perceived impediment to reuse of a site.
The term "institutional control" can be applied to a wide
spectrum of legal and administrative measures. In general,
mechanisms for creating institutional
controls can be divided into four
categories - proprietary controls,
governmental controls, enforcement
and permit tools with institutional
control components, and
informational devices. Proprietary
controls are unique because they are
based on real property law.
Examples of proprietary controls
include covenants, which are written
contracts that can prohibit specific
types of development or use of
construction on the land, and
easements, which can grant access
or restrict the owner to uses that are
compatible with the intended use. Governmental controls
involve restrictions that generally fall within the traditional
police powers of state and local governments to impose and
enforce. Examples of government controls include zoning, by
which restrictions can be imposed through the local zoning or
land use planning authority that limits access and prohibits
disturbance of the response action, well drilling prohibitions,
and such ordinances as building permit processes and master
planning activities.
other institutional controls.
Institutional controls also
are designed to ensure that
the post-remediation use of
the property is compatible
with the level of cleanup.
Institutional controls, however, have
several limitations. For example, deed notices are
informational, not enforceable. An easement cannot be
established unless there is a party willing to hold the easement.
Some state governments cannot hold easements, and other
parties may be unwilling to do so. Zoning laws may not be fully
effective unless they are monitored and enforced over the long
term, and local governments may not
have the resources necessary to
conduct such oversight. Further,
zoning ordinances are not
necessarily permanent; they can be
repealed, or local governments can
grant exceptions to them after public
hearings.
Institutional controls are administrative and
legal mechanisms that are intended to
reduce exposure to residual contamination
and protect the integrity of a remedy at
former industrial facilities or waste disposal
sites by controlling resources.
The role of institutional controls is an
important consideration during the cleanup
of a brownfields site.
Examples of institutional controls include
covenants, recorded deed notices,
restrictions, and advisories.
Another common type of institutional controls is enforcement
mechanisms or permits. Such institutional controls include
Administrative Orders, Consent Decrees, and RCRA permits
that require a land owner, usually a potential responsible party
(PRP), to limit certain activities at a site. Those institutional
controls are used most frequently for CERCLA and RCRA
cleanups. The final category of institutional controls is
informational tools. Informational tools provide information
about residual or capped contamination or notification that
such contamination may remain on site or that a remedy has
been undertaken. Typical examples of such tools include state
registries of contaminated properties, deed notices, and
advisories. Informational devices are used most frequently as
a secondary measure to help ensure the overall reliability of
Concern has been expressed about
the long-term viability of institutional
controls as a remediation tool. For
example, they may be forgotten;
enforcement agencies may not
effectively review properties or land
users' actions; or land users simply
may take their chances. Institutional
controls are a mechanism for providing a certain degree of
safety in the absence of technology that could clean
contaminated sites thoroughly. Decision makers should weigh
the full costs of such options, including capital costs, costs of
long-term sampling and analysis, and costs of replacing
equipment, as well as concerns about potential long-term risks
associated with contaminants left in place, against the cost
options that would remove the contaminants permanently.
Because land use remains the principal domain of local
governments, those governments play a significant role in the
management and oversight of institutional controls; however, it
is not always clear what that role will be. Many local
governments do not yet have the capacity and resources
necessary to meet the challenges of long-term stewardship.
With an improved understanding of the terms and issues related
to institutional controls, local governments and brownfields
stakeholders will be in a better position to respond effectively to
the long-term challenges of using institutional controls to
promote reuse, while ensuring that public health and the
environment are protected.
For more information, see the resource numbered 85 in
the Index of Resources beginning on page 1-1.
66
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Improving the Cost-Effectiveness of
Hazardous Waste Site Characterization
and Monitoring
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The report introduces a new standard promoted by
EPA's OSWER and TIO that encourages more effective
and less costly strategies for characterizing and
monitoring hazardous waste sites. The new
approach uses an integrated triad of systematic
planning, dynamic work plans, and onsite analysis
for data collection and technical decision making at
hazardous waste sites. Individually, none of the
concepts in the triad is new, but it has been
demonstrated that the integrated approach completes
projects faster, cheaper, and with greater regulatory
and client satisfaction than the traditional phased
approach. The report includes a list of additional
resources regarding innovative technologies and site
characterization.
Institutional Controls: A Site Manager's
Guide to Identifying, Evaluating, and
Selecting Institutional Controls at
Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action
Cleanups (EPA 540-F-00-005)
View or download the pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The fact sheet provides site managers and decision
makers at Superfund and RCRA corrective action
sites with an overview of the types of institutional
controls (1C) that commonly are used or implemented
and outlines the factors that generally should be
considered when evaluating and selecting ICs as part
of the remedy. The fact sheet also provides guidance
to the public and the regulated community in the
matter of how EPA intends to evaluate and implement
ICs as part of cleanup decisions. Detailed
descriptions of the different types of ICs are provided,
as well as a glossary, and a checklist for
implementing ICs.
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites:
Recreational Use of Land Above
Hazardous Waste Containment Areas
(EPA540-K-01-002)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map
CD-ROM
The report provides technical information about how
sites at which waste containment areas are present
have been reused safely for recreational purposes,
while ensuring that the integrity and protecriveness
of the remedy are maintained. The information is
helpful when considering recreational reuse options
during EPA's process of selecting and designing a
cleanup plan for a Superfund site. The information
presented in the report draws on experiences gained
through lessons learned from previous recreational
redevelopment projects at Superfund and other
contaminated sites.
State Policy and Regulatory Barriers to In Situ
Ground Water Remediation (EPA 542-R-96-001)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The report identifies specific state regulatory and
policy barriers to the use of techniques that enhance
in situ groundwater treatment technologies through
the subsurface injection of surfactants, cosolvents,
and nutrients. The report also describes the
experiences and policies of each state and provides
contact information for obtaining additional
assistance.
Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural
Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Ground
Water (EPA 600-R-98-128)
View or download pdffile on the Road Map CD-ROM
The report provides guidance for environmental
managers about the steps that must be taken to
understand the rate and extent to which natural
processes are reducing contaminant concentrations at
sites that are contaminated by chlorinated solvents.
Data collected with this protocol can be used to
evaluate natural attenuation through biological
processes as part of a protective overall site remedy.
The protocol is the result of a collaborative field and
laboratory research effort involving researchers from
EPA ORD, the USAF, and the U.S. Geological Survey.
WASTECH® Series of Innovative Site Remediation
Technology Engineering Monographs
See Appendix D, How to Order Documents, for a
WASTECH order form, or view the order form on the Road
Map CD-ROM
The WASTECH® project generates authoritative,
consensus-based engineering monographs for
remediation of hazardous waste sites and
contaminated soils and groundwater. WASTECH® is
funded by EPA, DoD, DOE, and the American
Academy of Environmental Engineers®. During
Phase I of the project, eight monographs were
published in 1994 and 1995 covering the basics of
these technologies, i.e., identification and description,
potential applications, process evaluations, and
limitations. During 1997 and early 1998, an
additional seven volumes covering the design and
applications, including actual case studies, were
produced. Copies of the individual monographs (by
technology type) or the entire series may be purchased
• Background • Introduction • Before You Begin • Site Assessment • Site Investigation • Cleanup Options • Cleanup Design and Implementation 67
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
by contacting the American Academy of
Environmental Engineers® by telephone at 410-266-
3390 or by facsimile at 410-266-7653. The volumes
contain information on the following technologies:
- Bioremediation
- Chemical treatment
- Soil washing/soil flushing
- Solidification/stabilization
- Solvent/chemical extraction
- Thermal desorption
- Thermal destruction
- Vacuum vapor extraction
Where Do We Go From Here?
Next Steps
After you have completed cleanup, you
may take one of the following courses of action:
Result of Cleanup
Course of Action
Contamination has
been removed,
contained,
or controlled.
Consult with the
appropriate regulatory
officials before proceeding
with redevelopment
activities.
Additional
contamination has
been discovered.
Continue cleanup
activities. However, you
may have to return to the
SITE INVESTIGATION
phase to determine the
extent and nature of
the contamination.
Long-term
monitoring of
cleanup and
performance of the
technology is
required.
Return to the SITE
INVESTIGATION phase
to collect after-performance
samples for monitoring
cleanup.
68
-------
APPENDICES
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
AppendixA
GUIDE TO CONTAMINANTS AND TECHNOLOGIES
The tables provided in this appendix are intended to assist brownfields stakeholders to better understand the
types of contaminants typically found at brownfields sites and the range of technologies that may be
appropriate to assess and remediate those contaminants during the phases of a site cleanup. Information for
the tables was compiled from several sources, including EPA Guides to Pollution Prevention for selected
industries, EPA's REACH IT online searchable database, as well as many other EPA sources. A list of specific
citations used is provided on page A-3.
The following table identifies activities that may have caused contamination at brownfields sites. The table
summarizes contaminants that are related to such activities and identifies sources for the contaminants.
However, it is not an exhaustive list of contaminants that can be found at a brownfields site. Identifying
contaminants that may be present should be determined on a site-by-site basis. Such a determination should
be conducted thoroughly and carefully.
Table A-l. Contaminants Found at Typical Brownfields Sites
Past Activities Typically Conducted
at Brownfields Sites
Agriculture
Automotive refinishingand repair
Battery recycling and disposal
Chloro-alkali manufacturing
Coal gasification
Cosmetics manufacturing
Dry cleaning activities
Dye facilities
Electroplating operations
Glass manufacturing
Herbicide manufacturing and use
Hospitals
Incinerators
Landfills—municipal and industrial
Leather manufacturing
Machine shops/metal fabrication
Manufactured gas plant
Marine maintenance industry
Munitions manufacturing
Paint/ink manufacturing
Typical Contaminants
Volatile organic compounds (VOC), arsenic, copper, carbon tetrachloride, ethylene
dibromide and methylene chloride, pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, grain
fumigants
Metals and metal dust, various organic compounds, solvents, paint and paint
sludges, scrap metal, waste oils
Lead, cadmium, acids, nickel, copper, zinc, arsenic, chromium
Chlorine compounds, mercury
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), sulfur compounds, cyanide, aluminum,
iron, lead, nickel, chromium
Heavy metals, dusts, solvents, acids
VOCs such as chloroform and tetrachloroethane, various solvents, spot removers,
f luorocarbon 113, perchloroethylene
2-naphthylamine, 4-aminobiphenyl, benzidine
Various metals such as cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, and cyanide
Arsenic, lead
Dioxin, metals, herbicides
Formaldehyde, radionuclides, photographic chemicals, solvents, mercury, ethylene
oxide, chemotherapy chemicals
Dioxin, various municipal and industrial waste, ash, ordnance compounds,
metals
Metals, VOCs, poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCB), ammonia, methane, household
products and cleaners, pesticides, hydrogen sulfide
Toluene, benzene
Metals, VOCs, dioxin, beryllium, degreasing agents, solvents, waste oils
Non-halogenated VOCs and non-halogenated semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOC) such as PAHs and carcinogenic PAHs, including naphthalene,
phenanthrene, anthracene, chrysene, andbenzo(a)pyrene
Solvents, paints, cyanide, acids, VOC emissions, heavy metal sludges, degreasers
Lead, explosives, copper, antimony, unexploded ordnance (UXO)
Metals (such as chromium, cadmium, lead, and zinc), VOCs, chloroform, ethyl
benzene, solvents, paints, inks
• APPENDIX A: GUIDE TO CONTAMINANTS AND TECHNOLOGIES
A-1
-------
MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Past Activities Typically Conducted
at Brownfields Sites (continued)
Pesticide manufacturing
Petroleum refining and reuse
Pharmaceutical manufacturing
Photographic manufacturing and uses
Plastics manufacturing
Printing industry
Railroad yards
Research and educational institutions
Scrap metal operations
Semiconductor manufacturing
Smelter operations
Underground storage tanks
Wood pulp and paper manufacturing
Wood preserving
Typical Contaminants
VOCs, arsenic, copper, pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, xylene,
chlorinated organic compounds, solvents
Petroleum hydrocarbons; benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX); fuels;
oil and grease
Lead, various organic chemicals, organic solvents
Silver bromide, methylene chloride, solvents, photographic products
Polymers, phthalates, cadmium, solvents, resins, chemical additives, VOCs
Silver, solvents, acids, waste oils, inks and dyes, photographic chemicals
Petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, BTEX, solvents, fuels, oil and grease, lead, PCBs,
P AHs, phthalates, carbazole, dieldrin, dibenzofurans
Inorganic acids, organic solvents, metals and metal dust, photographic waste,
waste oil, paint, heavy metals, pesticides
Metals (such as lead and nickel), PCBs, dioxin, transformers
Metals, VOCs, carbon tetrachloride, degreasing agents, solvents
Metals (such as lead, copper, and arsenic)
Petroleum hydrocarbons, gasoline, diesel fuel, BTEX, MTBE, solvents, metals, POLs
Chlorinated organic compounds, dioxins, furans, chloroform, resin acids
Creosote, pentachlorophenol (PCP), arsenic, chromium, copper, PCBs, PAHs,
beryllium, dioxin, wood preservatives, zinc, petroleum hydrocarbons
Table A-2, Technologies for Sampling and Analyzing Contaminants Found at Typical Brownfields Sites
Examples of technologies that may be used for sampling and analysis are presented below.
Contaminant Types*
Fuels and Non-halogenated VOCs
(gasoline, diesel, motor oil, BTEX,
acetone, TPH, PAH)
HalogenatedVOCs
(PCE, TCE, vinyl chloride)
Non-halogenated SVOCs
(chrysene, naphthalene,
phenanthrene, pyrene)
Halogenated SVOCs
(chlordane, PCBs, PCP, dioxins,
furans, pesticides)
Inorganic Compounds
(arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
mercury, lead)
Explosives
(TNT,RDX,HMX)
Oxygenates
(MTBE, ethanol, ethyl tertiary
butyl ether [ETBE], tertiary amyl
methyl ether [TAME])
Sampling and Analysis Technologies
Colorimetric Test Kits; Immunoassay Test Kits; Laser-induced Fluorescence /Cone
Penetrometer; Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry; Diffusion Samplers; Infrared
Monitors
Portable Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry; Colorimetric Test Kits; Immunoassay
Test Kits; Infrared Monitors; Diffusion Samplers
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry; Laser-Induced Fluorescence/Cone
Penetrometer
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry; Immunoassay Test Kits; Colorimetric Test Kits
Immunoassay Test Kits; X-ray Analyzers; Electrochemical Detector Kits; Graphite Furnace
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
Colorimetric Test Kits; Immunoassay Test Kits; Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
Portable Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry; Colorimetric Test Kits; Immunoassay
Test Kits; Infrared Monitors; Diffusion Samplers
f The contaminants in parentheses are examples of each type of contaminant.
A-2
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Table A-3, Remedies for Types of Contaminants Found at Typical Brownfields Sites
Identified below are types of technologies that may be appropriate for specific types of contaminants.
Examples of Site Remedies
Contaminant Type*
Soils, Sediments, and Sludges
Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate
Fuels and Non-halogenated VOCs
(gasoline, diesel, motor oil, BTEX,
acetone, TPH, PAH)
Biopile; Bioventing; Incineration; Natural
Attenuation; Soil Flushing; Soil Vapor
Extraction (SVE); Solidification/
Stabilization; Soil Washing; Thermal
Desorption
Air Sparging; Bioslurping; Biosparging;
Bioreactors; Dual-Phase Extraction;
Permeable Reactive Barriers;
Phytoremediation; UV Oxidation
HalogenatedVOCs
(PCE, TCE, vinyl chloride)
Bioventing; Bioremediation;
Solvent Extraction
Air Sparging; Dual-Phase Extraction;
Permeable Reactive Barriers;
Pump and Treat
Non-halogenated SVOCs
(chrysene, naphthalene,
phenanthrene, pyrene)
Solvent Extraction; Thermal Desorption;
Thermally Enhanced SVE
Bioreactors; Bioslurping; Permeable
Reactive Barriers; Soil/Steam Flushing
Halogenated SVOCs
(chlordane, PCBs, PCP, dioxins,
furans, pesticides)
Incineration; Thermal Desorption;
Thermally Enhanced SVE
Bioreactors; Bioslurping; Permeable
Reactive Barriers
Inorganic Compounds
(arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
mercury, lead)
Chemical Oxidation/Reduction;
Electrokinetic Separation; Soil Flushing
Soil Washing; Solidification/Stabilization;
Phytoremediation; Solvent Extraction
Permeable Reactive Barriers;
Phytoremediation; Pump and Treat using
Ion Exchange or Adsorption
Explosives
(TNT,RDX,HMX)
Bioremediation; Soil Washing;
Solvent Extraction; Thermal Desorption
Bioreactor; Permeable Reactive Barriers;
Phytoremediation
Oxygenates
(MTBE, ethanol, ETBE, TAME)
SVE; Thermal Desorption; Bioremediation
Pump and Treat using Granular
Activated Carbon (G AC), Air Sparging,
Bioremediation; Chemical Oxidation;
Dual-Phase Extraction
h The contaminants in parentheses are examples of each type of contaminant.
LIST OF CITATIONS USED TO IDENTIFY COMMON CONTAMINANTS AND TECHNOLOGIES
Bioremediation of Hazardous Waste: Research Development,
and Field Evaluation (EPA 540-R-95-532)
Brownfields Technology Primer: Requesting and Evaluating
Proposals That Encourage Innovative Technologies for
Investigation and Cleanup (EPA 540-R-01-005)
Contaminants and Remedial Options at Selected Metal-
Contaminated Sites (EPA 540-R-95-512, PB95-271961)
Dry Cleaning and Laundry Plants, Fact Sheet
(EPA 530-SW-90-027b)
EPA OECA Industry Sector Notebooks
EPA ORD Brownfields Guides
EPA Region 3 Industry Profile Fact Sheets
EPA REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative
Technologies (EPA REACH IT)
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) Case
Studies
Field Sampling and Analysis Technologies Matrix,
Version 1.0
Guidelines for Waste Reduction and Recycling: Metal
Finishing, Electroplating, Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing,
Hazardous Waste Reduction Program, Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (No document number)
Guides to Pollution Prevention:
- Research and Educational Institutions (EPA 625-7-90-010)
- Selected Hospital Waste Streams (EPA 625-7-90-009)
- The Automotive Refinishing Industry (EPA 625-7-91-016)
- The Automotive Repair Industry (EPA 625-7-91-013)
- The Commercial Printing Industry (EPA 625-7-90-008)
- The Fiberglass-Reinforced and Composite Plastics Industry
(EPA 625-7-91-014)
- The Marine Maintenance and Repair Industry
(EPA 625-7-91-015)
- The Mechanical Equipment Repair Industry
(EPA 625-R-92-008)
- The Pesticide Formulating Industry (EPA 625-7-90-004)
- The Pharmaceutical Industry (EPA 625-7-91-017)
Low-Level Mixed Waste: A RCRA Perspective for NRC
Licenses (EPA 530-SW-90-057)
Pollution Prevention Technologies for the Bleached Kraft
Segment of the U.S. Pulp and Paper Industry
(EPA 600-R-93-110)
Resource for MGP Site Characterization and Remediations:
Expedited Site Characterization and Source Remediation at
Former Manufactured Gas Plant Sites (EPA 542-R-00-005)
Solving the Hazardous Waste Problem: EPA's RCRA
Program (EPA 530-SW-86-037)
Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Report,
Ninth Edition (EPA 542-R-99-001)
U.S. Department of Energy Preferred Alternatives Matrices
(PAM)
Waste Minimization Audit Report: Case Studies of
Minimization of Mercury-Bearing Wastes at a Mercury Cell
Chloralkali Plant; Project Summary (EPA 600-S2-88-011)
Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment: Philadelphia
Naval Shipyard; Project Summary (EPA 600-S2-90-046)
APPENDIX A: GUIDE TO CONTAMINANTS AND TECHNOLOGIES
A-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Appendix B
LIST OF ACRONYMS and GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirement
ASTM American Society for Testing and
Materials
BOAT Best Demonstrated Available Technology
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and
Xylene
BTSC EPA Brownfields Technology Support
Center
CAA Clean Air Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
CERI Center for Environmental Research
Information
CLU-IN EPA Hazardous Waste Clean-up
Information Web Site
CMS Corrective Measure Study
CSM Conceptual Site Model
CWA Clean Water Act
DNAPL Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid
DQO Data Quality Objective
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA REACH IT EPA REmediation And CHaracterization
Innovative Technologies Online
Searchable Database
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FATE EPA Field Analytic Technologies
Encyclopedia
FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
GAC Granular Activated Carbon
HRS Hazard Ranking System
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
1C Institutional Control
IDC Interagency DNAPL Consortium
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
ITT Innovative Treatment Technology
LDR Land Disposal Restrictions
LNAPL Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquid
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MGP Manufactured Gas Plant
MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
NAPL Nonaqueous Phase Liquid
NCP National Contingency Plan
NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
NPL National Priorities List
NRC National Response Center
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
OUST Office of Underground Storage Tanks
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PA/SI Preliminary Assessment and Site
Inspection
PBMS Performance-Based Measurement System
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PCE Tetrachloroethene
PCP Pentachlorophenol
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
QA/QC Quality Assurance and Quality Control
RBCA Risk-Based Corrective Action
RBDM Risk-Based Decision-Making
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD/RA Remedial Design and Remedial Action
RFA RCRA Facility Assessment
RFI RCRA Facility Investigation
RI/FS Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study
ROD Record of Decision
RQ Reportable Quantity
SARA Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act
SCRD State Coalition for Remediation of
Drycleaners
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SRI Superfund Redevelopment Initiative
SVE Soil Vap or Extraction
SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
TCE Trichloroethene
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TIO Technology Innovation Office
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSDF Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility
UST Underground Storage Tank
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
• APPENDIX B: LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
B-1
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
The following is a list of specialized terms used during the cleanup of brownfields sites.
Absorption
Absorption is the passage of one substance into or
through another.
Adsorption
Adsorption is the adhesion of molecules of gas, liquid,
or dissolved solids to a surface. The term also refers to
a method of treating wastes in which activated carbon
is used to remove organic compounds from
wastewater. See also Carbon Adsorption.
Air Sparging
In air sparging, air is injected into the ground below a
contaminated area, forming bubbles that rise and
carry trapped and dissolved contaminants to the
surface. Air sparging is often used in conjunction
with soil vapor extraction systems. See also Soil Vapor
Extraction.
Air Stripping
Air stripping is a treatment technology that removes
or "strips" VOCs from contaminated groundwater or
surface water. As air is forced through the water,
VOCs are volatilized. See also Volatile Organic
Compound.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
The ASTM sets standards for many services,
including methods of sampling and testing of
hazardous waste and media contaminated with
hazardous waste.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirement (ARAR)
As defined under CERCLA, ARARs are cleanup
standards, standards of control, and other
substantive environmental protection requirements,
criteria, or limits set forth under federal or state law
that specifically address problems or situations
present at a CERCLA site. ARARs are major
considerations in setting cleanup goals, selecting a
remedy, and determining how to implement that
remedy at a CERCLA site. ARARs must be attained at
all CERCLA sites unless a waiver is attained. ARARs
are not national cleanup standards for the Superfund
program. See also Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and Superfund.
Aquifer
An aquifer is an underground rock formation
composed of such materials as sand, soil, or gravel
that can store groundwater and supply it to wells and
springs.
ARAR
CERCLA requires that Superfund remedial actions
attain standards that are legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the circumstances at a
given Superfund site. ARARs are used in conjunction
with risk-based goals to establish cleanup goals at
Superfund sites. ARARs are established on a site-by-
site basis, and may include those under federal laws
and regulations and those under state and local laws
and regulations
Aromatics
Aroma tics are organic compounds that contain
6-carbon ring structures, such as creosote, toluene,
and phenol, that often are found at dry cleaning and
electronic assembly sites.
Baseline Risk Assessment
A baseline risk assessment is an assessment
conducted before cleanup activities begin at a site to
identify and evaluate the threat to human health and
the environment. After remediation has been
completed, the information obtained during a
baseline risk assessment can be used to determine
whether the cleanup levels were reached.
BOAT
Under the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions Program,
EPA establishes treatment standards governing
specific waste codes that are based on the performance
of BDAT. Of the proven, available technologies, EPA
designates as BDAT the technology that best
minimizes the mobility or toxicity of the hazardous
waste constituents of a waste.
Bedrock
Bedrock is the rock that underlies the soil; it can be
permeable or non-permeable. See also Confining Layer
and Creosote.
Best Demonstrated AvailableTechnology (BDAT)
A BDAT is a technology that has demonstrated the
ability to reduce a particular contaminant to a lower
concentration than other currently available
technologies. BDATs can change with time as
technologies evolve.
Biodegradability
Biodegradability is the capability of a substance to
break down into simpler substances, especially into
innocuous products, by the actions of living
organisms (that is, microorganisms).
B-2
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Biopile
Biopile is an aerated static pile composting process in
which soil is mixed with amendments on a treatment
area that includes leachate collection systems and
aeration with blowers or vacuum pumps. It is used to
reduce concentrations of petroleum constituents
through the use of biodegradation. Moisture, heat,
nutrients, oxygen, and pH can be controlled to
enhance biodegradation.
Bioremediation
Bioremediation refers to treatment processes that use
microorganisms such as bacteria, yeast, or fungi to
break down hazardous substances into less toxic or
nontoxic substances. Bioremediation can be used to
clean up contaminated soil and water. In situ
bioremediation treats contaminated soil or
groundwater in the location in which it is found. For
ex situ bioremediation processes, contaminated soil is
excavated or groundwater is pumped to the surface
before they can be treated.
Bioreactor
Bioreactors use microorganisms in attached or
suspended biological systems to degrade
contaminants in water. In suspended biological
systems, such as activated sludge, fluidized beds, or
sequencing batch reactors, contaminated water is
circulated in an aeration basin microbes aerobically
degrade organic matter and produce carbon dioxide,
water, and biomass. In attached systems, such as
rotating biological contactors (RBC) and trickling
filters, a microbial population is established on an
inert support matrix, the cells form a sludge, which is
settled out in a clarifier and is recycled to the aeration
basin and disposed of.
Biosensor
A biosensor is a portable device that uses living
organisms, such as microbes, or parts and products of
living organisms, such as enzymes, tissues, and
anitbodies, to produce reactions to specific chemical
contaminants.
Bioslurping
Bioslurping is the adaptation of vacuum-enhanced
dewatering technologies to remediate
hydrocarbon-contaminated sites. Bioslurping
combines elements of bothbioventing and free-product
recovery to simultaneously recover free product and
bioremediate soils in the vadose zone. Bioventing
stimulates the aerobic bioremediation of
hydrocarbon-contaminated soils and
vacuum-enhanced free-product recovery extracts light
nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) from the capillary
fringe and the water table. See also Vadose Zone.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology refers to the application of advanced
biological techniques in the manufacture of industrial
products (for example, antibiotics and insulin) or for
environmental management (for example, waste
recycling).
Bioventing
Bioventing is an in situ remediation technology that
stimulates the natural biodegradation of aerobically
degradable compounds in soil by the injection of
oxygen into the subsurface. Bioventing has been used
to remediate releases of petroleum products, such as
gasoline, jet fuels, kerosene, and diesel fuel. See also
Bioremediation and Soil Vapor Extraction.
Borehole
A borehole is a hole cut into the ground by means of a
drilling rig.
Borehole Geophysics
Borehole geophysics are nuclear or electric
technologies used to identify the physical
characteristics of geologic formations that are
intersected by a borehole.
Brownfields
Brownfields sites are abandoned, idled, or under-
used industrial and commercial facilities where
expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or
perceived environmental contamination.
BTEX
BTEX is the term used for benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene-volatile aromatic
compounds typically found in petroleum products,
such as gasoline and diesel fuel.
Cadmium
Cadmium is a silvery-white metallic element that is
used in a variety of manufacturing operations,
including the manufacture of batteries, coatings,
alloys, and pigments. Cadmium is a heavy metal.
See also Heavy Metal.
Carbazole
Carbazole is formed as a result of the incomplete
combustion of nitrogen-containing organic matter.
When heated to decomposition, such matter emits
toxic fumes of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and
nitrogen oxides. Carbazole is used in making
• APPENDIX B: LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
B-3
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
photographic plates sensitive to ultraviolet light and
in the manufacture of reagents, explosives,
insecticides, lubricants, and rubber antioxidants.
Carbon Adsorption
Carbon adsorption is a remediation technology that
removes contaminants from air or water through
physical adsorption into the carbon grain. Carbon is
"activated" to improve adsorption through a process
that creates porous particles that have large internal
surface areas. A number of commercial grades of
activated carbon are available to meets the needs of
specific applications.
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride is a colorless, highly volatile
liquid that has a strong ethereal odor similar to that of
chloroform. It mixes sparingly with water and, when
heated to decomposition, emits highly toxic fumes of
phosgene. Carbon tetrachloride is used primarily as a
chemical intermediate in the production of the
refrigerants Freon 11 and 12. It also has been used as
a general solvent in industrial degreasing operations
and as an industrial solvent in the manufacture of
cables and semiconductors.
Chemical Dehalogenation
Chemical dehalogenation is a chemical process that
removes halogens (usually chlorine) from a chemical
contaminant, rendering the contaminant less
hazardous. The chemical dehalogenation process
can be applied to common halogenated contaminants
such as PCBs and dioxins, which may be present in
soil and oils. Dehalogenation can be effective in
removing halogens from hazardous organic
compounds, such as dioxins, PCBs, and certain
chlorinated pesticides. The treatment time is short,
energy requirements are moderate, and operation and
maintenance costs are relatively low. This technology
can be brought to the site, eliminating the need to
transport hazardous wastes. See also Polychlorinated
Biphenyl and Dioxin.
Chemical Reduction/Oxidation
Chemical treatments typically involve chemical
reduction/oxidation (redox) reactions that chemically
convert hazardous contaminants to nonhazardous or
less toxic compounds that are more stable, less
mobile, or inert. Redox reactions involve the transfer
of electrons from one compound to another.
Specifically, one reactant is oxidized (loses electrons)
and one is reduced (gains electrons). The oxidizing
agents most commonly used for treatment of
hazardous contaminants are ozone, hydrogen
peroxide, hypochlorites, chlorine, and chlorine
dioxide. In cyanide oxidation, organic cyanides are
oxidized to less hazardous compounds through
chemical reactions. This method can be applied in
situ or ex situ to soils, sludges, sediments, and other
solids and also can be applied for the in situ
treatment of groundwater.
Chlorinator
A chlorinator is a device that adds chlorine, in gas or
liquid form, to water or sewage to kill bacteria.
Clean Air Act (CAA)
The CAA is a federal law passed in 1970 that requires
EPA to establish regulations to control the release of
contaminants to the air to protect human health and
environment.
Cleanup
Cleanup is the term used for actions taken to deal
with a release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance that could affect humans and or the
environment. The term sometimes is used
interchangeably with the terms remedial action,
removal action, response action, or corrective action.
Clean Water Act (CWA)
CWA is a 1977 amendment to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972, which set the basic
structure for regulating discharges of pollutants to
U.S. waters. This law gave EPA the authority to set
wastewater discharge standards on an industry-by-
industry basis and to set water quality standards for
all contaminants in surface waters.
Colorimetric
Colorimetric refers to chemical reaction-based
indicators that are used to produce reactions to
individual, or classes of compounds. The reactions,
such as visible color changes or other easily noted
indications, are used to detect and quantify
contaminants.
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
CERCLA is a federal law passed in 1980 that created
a special tax that funds a trust fund, commonly
known as Superfund, to be used to investigate and
clean up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites. CERCLA required for the first time that
EPA step beyond its traditional regulatory role and
provide response authority to clean up hazardous
waste sites. EPA has primary responsibility for
managing cleanup and enforcement activities
authorized under CERCLA. Under the program, EPA
can pay for cleanup when parties responsible for the
B-4
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
contamination cannot be located or are unwilling or
unable to perform the work, or take legal action to
force parties responsible for contamination to clean
up the site or reimburse the federal government for the
cost of the cleanup. See also Superfund.
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS)
CERCLIS is a database that serves as the official
inventory of Superfund hazardous waste sites.
CERCLIS also contains information about all aspects
of hazardous waste sites, from initial discovery to
deletion from the NPL. The database also maintains
information about planned and actual site activities
and financial information entered by EPA regional
offices. CERCLIS records the targets and
accomplishments of the Superfund program and is
used to report that information to the EPA
Administrator, Congress, and the public. See also
National Priorities List and Superfund.
Conceptual Site Model (CSM)
A CSM, a key element used in facilitating cleanup
decisions during a site investigation, is a planning
tool that organizes information that already is known
about a site and identifies the additional information
necessary to support decisions that will achieve the
goals of the project. The project team then uses the
CSM to direct field work that focuses on the
information needed to remove significant unknowns
from the model. The CSM serves several purposes -
as a planning instrument; as a modeling and data
interpretation tool; and as a means of communication
among members of a project team, decision makers,
stakeholders, and field personnel.
Cone Penetrometer
The cone penetrometer is a truck-mounted device that
rapidly penetrates the ground to collect samples. It
has been used for approximately the last 50 years for
geotechnical applications, but its use for site
characterization is relatively new.
Confining Layer
A "confining layer" is a geological formation
characterized by low permeability that inhibits the
flow of water. See also Bedrock and Permeability.
Contaminant
A contaminant is any physical, chemical, biological,
or radiological substance or matter present in any
media at concentrations that may pose a threat to
human health or the environment.
Corrective Measure Study (CMS)
If the potential need for corrective measures is verified
during a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI), the owner
or operator of a facility is then responsible for
performing a CMS. A CMS is conducted to identify,
evaluate, and recommend specific corrective measures
based on a detailed engineering evaluation. Using
data collected during the RFI, the CMS demonstrates
that proposed measures will be effective in
controlling the source of contamination, as well as
problems posed by the migration of substances from
the original source into the environment. The
measures also must be assessed in terms of technical
feasibility, ability to meet public health protection
requirements and protect the environment, possible
adverse environmental effects, and institutional
constraints. See also RCRA Facility Investigation.
Corrosivity
Corrosive wastes include those that are acidic and
capable of corroding metal such as tanks, containers,
drums, and barrels.
Creosote
Creosote is an oily liquid obtained by the distillation
of wood that is used as a wood preservative and
disinfectant and often is found at wood preserving
sites. See also Aromatics and Light Nonaqueous Phase
Liquid.
Cylinder Recovery Vessel
Cylinders or containers often cannot be sampled
safely through the valve mechanism because of the
condition of the container. The cylinder recovery
vessel (CRV) was developed to safely control the
hazards posed by such containers. The system
provides for sampling and recontainerization of the
cylinder's contents in a contained, inert environment.
The vessel and system are designed to accommodate
the high pressures and wide variety of gases and
liquids present in gas cylinders.
Data Quality
The term data quality refers to all features and
characteristics of data that bear on its ability to meet
the stated or implied needs and expectations of the
user.
Data Quality Objective (DQO)
DQOs are qualitative and quantitative statements
specified to ensure that data of known and
appropriate quality are obtained. The DQO process is
a series of planning steps, typically conducted during
site assessment and investigation, that is designed to
ensure that the type, quantity, and quality of
• APPENDIX B: LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
B-5
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
environmental data used in decision making are
appropriate. The DQO process involves a logical,
step-by-step procedure for determining which of the
complex issues affecting a site are the most relevant to
planning a site investigation before any data are
collected.
Dechlorination
Dechlorination, the process used primarily to treat
and destroy halogenated aromatic contaminants, is
the chemical reaction that removes halogens (usually
chlorine) from the primary structure of the
contaminating organic chemical. Dechlorination can
treat contaminated liquids, soils, sludges, and
sediments, as well as halogenated organics and PCBs,
pesticides, and some herbicides.
Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL)
A DNAPL is one of a group of organic substances that
are relatively insoluble in water and more dense than
water. DNAPLs tend to sink vertically through sand
and gravel aquifers to the underlying layer.
Detection Limit
The lowest concentration of a chemical that can be
distinguished reliably from a zero concentration.
Dibenzofurans
Dibenzofurans are a group of polynuclear aromatic
compounds, some of which are toxic. See also
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon.
Dieldrin
Dieldrin is an insecticide that was used until 1974 to
control insects on cotton, corn, and citrus crops, as
well as to control locusts, mosquitoes, and termites. It
also was used as a wood preservative. Most uses of
dieldrin were banned in 1987.
Diffusion Samplers
Diffusion samplers use natural molecular diffusion to
cause the molecules of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) to pass from groundwater through a
semipermeable sampler. Diffusion samplers use a
membrane that is filled with water and suspended in
the screened interval of a well until chemical
equilibrium occurs. The sampler then is retrieved, and
the contents are analyzed. Diffusion samplers may
offer many advantages over conventional
groundwater sampling techniques because they
eliminate the need for purging and disposal and can
be left in targeted areas for a period of time, thereby
allowing collection of a more representative sample.
Vapor-based sampler analysis, which can be
performed rapidly and inexpensively on field or
laboratory gas chromatographs, yields relative
concentrations of VOCs. Water-based sampler
analysis provides the advantage of quantifying
specific concentrations of VOCs through standard
laboratory methods. See also Gas Chromatography and
Volatile Organic Compounds.
Dioxin
A dioxin is any of a family of compounds known
chemically as dibenzo-p-dioxins. They are chemicals
released during combustion. Concern about them
arises from their potential toxicity and the risk posed
by contamination in commercial products. Boilers
and industrial furnaces are among the sources of
dioxins.
Direct Push Sampling
Direct push sampling is a technique in which a
sampling tube is hydraulically pushed or driven into
the subsurface, collecting material as it advances.
This technique can be used when sampling for
constituents, including VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, and
PAHs.
Disposal
Disposal is the final placement or destruction of toxic,
radioactive or other wastes; surplus or banned
pesticides or other chemicals; polluted soils; and
drums containing hazardous materials from removal
actions or accidental release. Disposal may be
accomplished through the use of approved secure
landfills, surface impoundments, land farming, deep
well injection, or ocean dumping.
Dual-Phase Extraction
Dual-phase extraction, also known as multi-phase
extraction, is a technology that uses a vacuum system
to remove various combinations of contaminated
groundwater, separate-phase petroleum product, and
vapors from the subsurface. The system lowers the
water table around a well, exposing more of the
formation. Contaminants in the newly exposed
vadose zone then are accessible to soil vapor
extraction. Once above ground, the extracted vapors
or liquid-phase organics and groundwater are
separated and treated. See also Soil Vapor Extraction.
Dynamic Underground Stripping
Dynamic underground stripping is a process that
employs vapor extraction during underground
steaming and electrical heating. The heat, supplied by
steam and electricity, vaporizes contaminants trapped
in the soil. Once vaporized, the contaminants are
removed by vacuum extraction. The process is
monitored and guided by underground imaging.
B-6
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Dynamic Work Plan
A dynamic work plan is a work plan that allows
project teams to make decisions in the field about how
site activities will progress. Dynamic work plans
provide the strategy for the way in which dynamic
field activities will take place. As such, they
document a flexible, adaptive sampling and
analytical strategy. Dynamic work plans are
supported by the rapid turnaround of data collected,
analyzed, and interpreted in the field.
Easement
An easement is a right to use the land of another for a
specific purpose, such as a right-of-way or a utility.
Electrochemical Detector Kits
Electrochemical test kits use the electrical charges of
ions that make up the target analyte(s) to identify and
quantify the target analyte(s) in a sample. Typically,
the ions are attracted to an anode or a cathode or
both, depending on their charge, resulting in the
generation of an electrical current that is measured
and converted into a sample concentration by the
unit's display or electronics. An analyte-specific
catalyst can be used to aid in the reaction. The self-
contained kits include all the equipment and supplies
necessary to produce an analytical result.
Electrokinetic Separation
In electrokinetic separation, electrochemical and
electrokinetic processes are used to desorb, and then
remove, metals and polar organics. This in situ soil
processing technology is primarily a separation and
removal technique for extracting contaminants from
soils. The principle of electrokinetic remediation
relies upon application of a low-intensity direct
current through the soil between ceramic electrodes
that are separated into a cathode array and an anode
array, mobilizing charged species and causing ions
and water to move toward the electrodes. The current
creates an acid front at the anode and a base front at
the cathode. The generation of acidic condition in
situ may help to mobilize sorbed metal contaminants
to be transported to the collection system at the
cathode.
Electromagnetic (EM) Geophysics
EM geophysics refers to technologies used to detect
spatial (horizontal and vertical) differences in
subsurface electromagnetic characteristics. The data
collected provide information about subsurface
environments.
Electromagnetic (EM) Induction
EM induction is a geophysical technology used to
create a magnetic field beneath the earth's surface,
which in turn causes a secondary magnetic field to
form around nearby objects that have conductive
properties, such as ferrous and nonferrous metals.
The secondary magnetic field then is used to detect
and measure buried debris.
Emergency Removal
An emergency removal is an action initiated in
response to a release of a hazardous substance that
requires on-site activity within hours of a
determination that action is appropriate.
Emerging Technology
An emerging technology is an innovative technology
that currently is undergoing bench-scale testing.
During bench-scale testing, a small version of the
technology is built and tested in a laboratory. If the
technology is successful during bench-scale testing, it
is demonstrated on a small scale at field sites. If the
technology is successful at the field demonstrations, it
often will be used full scale at contaminated waste
sites. As the technology is used and evaluated at
different sites, it is improved continually. See also
Established Technology and Innovative Technology.
Enforcement Action
An enforcement action is an action undertaken by
EPA under authority granted to it under various
federal environmental statutes, such as CERCLA,
RCRA, CAA, CWA, TSCA, and others. For example,
under CERCLA, EPA may obtain voluntary settlement
or compel potentially responsible parties (PRP) to
implement removal or remedial actions when releases
of hazardous substances have occurred. See also
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act; Potentially Responsible Party; and
Removal Action.
Engineered Control
An engineered control, such as barriers placed
between a contaminated area and the rest of a site, is
a method of managing environmental and health
risks. Engineered controls can be used to limit
exposure pathways.
Environmental Audit
An environmental audit usually refers to a review or
investigation that determines whether an operating
facility is in compliance with relevant environmental
regulations. The audit may include checks for
possession of required permits, operation within
• APPENDIX B: LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
B-7
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
permit limits, proper reporting, and record keeping.
The typical result is a corrective action or compliance
plan for the facility.
Environmental Risk
Environmental risk is the chance that human health
or the environment will suffer harm as the result of
the presence of environmental hazards.
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
An ESA is the process that determines whether
contamination is present at a site.
Established Technology
An established technology is a technology for which
cost and performance information is readily available.
Only after a technology has been used at many
different sites and the results fully documented is that
technology considered established. The most
frequently used established technologies are
incineration, solidification and stabilization, and
pump-and-treat technologies for groundwater. See
also Emerging Technology and Innovative Technology.
Exposure Pathway
An exposure pathway is the route of contaminants
from the source of contamination to potential contact
with a medium (air, soil, surface water, or
groundwater) that represents a potential threat to
human health or the environment. Determining
whether exposure pathways exist is an essential step
in conducting a baseline risk assessment. See also
Baseline Risk Assessment.
Ex Situ
The term ex situ or "moved from its original place,"
means excavated or removed.
Ex Situ Bioremediation
Ex situ bioremediation uses microorganisms to
degrade organic contaminants in excavated soil,
sludge, and solids. The microorganisms break down
contaminants by using them as a food source. The
end products typically are carbon dioxide and water.
Ex situ bioremediation includes slurry-phase
bioremediation, in which the soils are mixed with
water to form a slurry to keep solids suspended and
microorganisms in contact with the soil
contaminants; and solid-phase bioremediation, in
which the soils are placed in a cell or building and
tilled with added water and nutrients. Land farming
and composting are types of solid-phase
bioremediation.
Filtration
Filtration is a treatment process that removes solid
matter from water by passing the water through a
porous medium, such as sand or a manufactured
filter.
Flame lonization Detector (FID)
A FID is an instrument often used in conjunction with
gas chromatography to measure the change of signal
as analytes are ionized by a hydrogen-air flame. It
also is used to detect phenols, phthalates, PAHs,
VOCs, and petroleum hydrocarbons. See also Portable
Gas Chromatography.
Fluid/Vapor Extraction
In fluid/vapor extraction, a high-vacuum system is
applied to remove liquid and gas simultaneously
from low-permeability or heterogeneous formations.
The vacuum extraction well includes a screened
section in the zone of contaminated soils and
groundwater and is used to remove contaminants
from above and below the water table. The system
lowers the water table around the well, exposing more
of the formation. Contaminants in the newly exposed
vadose zone are then accessible for vapor extraction,
which can remove contaminants more efficiently than
pump-and-treat systems.
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy
A fourier transform infrared spectroscope is an
analytical air monitoring tool that uses a laser system
chemically to identify contaminants.
Fumigant
A f umigant is a pesticide that is vaporized to kill
pests. They often are used in buildings and
greenhouses.
Furan
Furan is a colorless, volatile liquid compound used in
the synthesis of organic compounds, especially nylon.
Gas Chromatography
Gas chromatography is a technology used for
investigating and assessing soil, water, and soil gas
contamination at a site. It is used for the analysis of
VOCs and SVOCs. The technique identifies and
quantifies organic compounds on the basis of
molecular weight, characteristic fragmentation
patterns, and retention time. Recent advances in gas
chromatography that are considered innovative are
portable, weather-proof units that have self-contained
power supplies.
B-8
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption (GFAA)
Spectroscopy
Graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA)
spectroscopy is a highly sensitive specrroscopic
technique that provides excellent detection limits for
measuring concentrations of metals in liquid sample
media. Water samples may be analyzed directly,
while soil samples first must undergo an extraction
process to draw the contaminants into solution for
analysis. The sample is vaporized in the graphite
furnace, and light of a specific wavelength then is
passed through the atomic vapor of an element of
interest. The attenuation of the intensity of the light
as a result of absorption is measured, and the amount
of attenuation is converted into an estimate of the
contaminant metal's concentration.
Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR)
GPR is a technology that emits pulses of
electromagnetic energy into the ground to measure its
reflection and refraction by subsurface layers and
other features, such as buried debris.
Groundwater
Groundwater is the water found beneath the earth's
surface that fills pores between such materials as
sand, soil, or gravel and that often supplies wells and
springs. See also Aquifer.
Halogenated Organic Compound
A halogenated organic compound is a compound
containing molecules of chlorine, bromine iodine, and
fluorine. Halogenated organic compounds were used
in high-voltage electrical transformers because they
conducted heat well while being fire resistant and
good electrical insulators. Many herbicides,
pesticides, and degreasing agents are made from
halogenated organic compounds.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
The HRS is the primary screening tool used by EPA to
assess the risks posed to human health or the
environment by abandoned or uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites. Under the HRS, sites are
assigned scores on the basis of the toxicity of
hazardous substances that are present and the
potential that those substances will spread through
the air, surface, water, or groundwater, taking into
account such factors as the proximity of the substance
to nearby populations. Scores are used in
determining which sites should be placed on the
NPL. See also National Priorities List.
Hazardous Substance
As defined under CERCLA, a hazardous substance is
any material that poses a threat to public health or the
environment. The term also refers to hazardous
wastes as defined under RCRA. Typical hazardous
substances are materials that are toxic, corrosive,
ignitable, explosive, or chemically reactive. If a
certain quantity of a hazardous substance, as
established by EPA, is spilled into the water or
otherwise emitted into the environment, the release
must be reported. Under the legislation cited above,
the term excludes petroleum, crude oil, natural gas,
natural gas liquids, or synthetic gas usable for fuel.
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
HSWA are 1984 amendments to RCRA which
required phasing out land disposal of hazardous
waste and added minimum technology requirements.
See also Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Heavy Metal
The term heavy metal refers to a group of toxic metals
including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
silver, and zinc. Heavy metals often are present at
industrial sites at which operations have included
battery recycling and metal plating.
Herbicide
A herbicide is a chemical pesticide designed to
control or destroy plants, weeds, or grasses.
High-Frequency Electromagnetic (EM) Sounding
High-frequency EM sounding, the technology used
for nonintrusive geophysical exploration, projects
high-frequency electromagnetic radiation into
subsurface layers to detect the reflection and
refraction of the radiation by various layers of soil.
Unlike ground-penetrating radar, which uses pulses,
the technology uses continuous waves of radiation.
See also Ground-Penetrating Radar.
Hot Air Injection
With hot air injection, hot air or steam is injected below
the contaminated zones to heat contaminated soil. The
heating enhances the release of contaminants from the
soil matrix so they can be extracted and captured for
further treatment and recycling.
Hydrazine
Hydrazine is a highly toxic liquid used in rocket
propellant, agricultural chemicals, drugs, spandex
fibers, antioxidants, plating metals on glass and
plastic, explosives, and in boiler feedwater. The
chemical compound causes a severe explosion
hazard when exposed to heat.
• APPENDIX B: LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
B-9
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Hydrocarbon
A hydrocarbon is an organic compound containing
only hydrogen and carbon, often occurring in
petroleum, natural gas, and coal.
Hydrogen Sulfide(HS)
HS is a gas emitted during decomposition of organic
compounds. It also is a byproduct of oil refining and
burning.
Hydrogeology
Hydrogeology is the study of groundwater, including
its origin, occurrence, movement, and quality.
Hydrology
Hydrology is the science that deals with the
properties, movement, and effects of water found on
the earth's surface, in the soil and rocks beneath the
surface, and in the atmosphere.
Hydrophobic Dye
Hydrophobic dye is added to liquids to assist in the
observation of the presence of items that are colorless.
Hyperaccumulator
A hyperaccumulator is a metallophyte that
accumulates an exceptionally high level of a metal to a
specified concentration or to a specified multiple of the
concentration found in nonaccumulators. The term is
used in reference to plants used in Phytoremediation.
See also Metallophytes and Phytoremediation.
Ignitability
Ignitable wastes can create fires under certain
conditions. Examples include liquids, such as
solvents that readily catch fire, and friction-sensitive
substances.
Immunoassay
Immunoassay is an innovative technology used to
measure compound-specific reactions (generally
colorimetric) to individual compounds or classes of
compounds. The reactions are used to detect and
quantify contaminants. The technology is available
in field-portable test kits.
In Situ Thermal Treatment
In situ thermal treatment is a treatment process that
involves heating contaminated soil in place to
vaporize organic contaminants in the soil. The
surface area to be treated is usually covered with
silicone rubber mats to provide insulation and to form
a vapor barrier.
Incineration
Incineration is a treatment technology that involves
the burning of certain types of solid, liquid, or
gaseous materials under controlled conditions to
destroy hazardous waste.
Infill Development
Infill development is new construction on previously
developed land in cities or developed suburbs. The
term often refers to redevelopment of small
residential, commercial, or industrial properties. An
important aspect of many infill development projects
is the enhancement of the built environment with
open space and parks.
Information Repository
An information repository is a location in a public
building that is convenient for local residents, such as
a public school, city hall, or library, that contains
information about a Superf und site, including
technical reports and reference documents.
Infrared Monitor
An infrared monitor is a device used to monitor the
heat signature of an object, as well as to sample air. It
may be used to detect buried objects in soil.
Inorganic Compound
An inorganic compound is a compound that
generally does not contain carbon atoms (although
carbonate and bicarbonate compounds are notable
exceptions) and tends to be more soluble in water.
Examples of inorganic compounds include various
acids, potassium hydroxide, and metals.
Innovative Technology
An innovative technology is a process that has been
tested and used as a treatment for hazardous waste or
other contaminated materials, but lacks a long history
of full-scale use and information about its cost and
how well it works sufficient to support prediction of
its performance under a variety of operating
conditions. An innovative technology is one that is
undergoing pilot-scale treatability studies that
usually are conducted in the field or the laboratory
and require installation of the technology, and
provide performance, cost, and design objectives for
the technology. Innovative technologies are being
used under many federal and state cleanup programs
to treat hazardous wastes that have been improperly
released. See also Emerging Technology and Established
Technology.
B-10
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Ion Exchange
Ion exchange, a common method of softening water,
depends on the ability of certain materials to remove
and exchange ions from water. These ion exchange
materials, generally composed of unsoluble organic
polymers, are placed in a filtering device. Water
softening exchange materials remove calcium and
magnesium ions, replacing them with sodium ions.
lonization
lonization is the process which causes an atom to
gain or lose electrons, which results in the atom
having a negative or positive charge.
Insecticide
An insecticide is a pesticide compound specifically
used to kill or control the growth of insects.
In Situ
The term in situ, "in its original place," or "on-site",
means unexcavated and unmoved. In situ soil
flushing and natural attenuation are examples of in
situ treatment methods by which contaminated sites
are treated without digging up or removing the
contaminants.
In Situ Bioremediation
In situ bioremediation techniques stimulate and
create a favorable environment for microorganisms to
grow and use contaminants as a food and energy
source. Generally, this means providing some
combination of oxygen, nutrients, and moisture, and
controlling the temperature and pH. Sometimes,
microorganisms adapted for degradation of the
specific contaminants are applied to enhance the
process. Bioventing is a common form of in situ
bioremediation. Bioventing uses extraction wells to
circulate air with or without pumping air into the
ground.
In Situ Oxidation
In situ oxidation is an innovative treatment
technology that oxidizes contaminants that are
dissolved in groundwater and converts them into
insoluble compounds.
In Situ Soil Flushing
In situ soil flushing is an innovative treatment
technology that floods contaminated soils beneath the
ground surface with a solution that moves the
contaminants to an area from which they can be
removed. The technology requires the drilling of
injection and extraction wells on site and reduces the
need for excavation, handling, or transportation of
hazardous substances. Contaminants considered for
treatment by in situ soil flushing include heavy
metals (such as lead, copper, and zinc), halogenated
organic compounds, aromatics, and PCBs. See also
Aromatics, Halogenated Organic Compound, Heavy
Metal, and Polychlorinated Biphenyl.
In Situ Vitrification
In situ vitrification is a soil treatment technology that
stabilizes metal and other inorganic contaminants in
place at temperatures of approximately 3000°F. Soils
and sludges are fused to form a stable glass and
crystalline structure with very low leaching
characteristics.
In Situ Well Aeration
For in situ well aeration, air is injected into a double
screened well, allowing the VOCs in the
contaminated groundwater to transfer from the
dissolved phase to the vapor-phase by air bubbles.
As the air bubbles rise to the water surface, the vapors
are drawn off and treated by an SVE system.
Institutional Controls
An institutional control is a legal or institutional
measure which subjects a property owner to limit
activities at or access to a particular property. They
are used to ensure protection of human health and the
environment, and to expedite property reuse. Zoning
and deed restrictions are examples of institutional
controls.
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
IRIS is an electronic database that contains EPA's
latest descriptive and quantitative regulatory
information about chemical constituents. Files on
chemicals maintained in IRIS contain information
related to both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic
health effects.
Joint and Several Liability
Under CERCLA, joint and several liability is a
concept based on the theory that it may not be
possible to apportion responsibility for the harm
caused by hazardous waste equitably among
potentially responsible parties (PRP). Joint liability
means that more than one PRP is liable to the
plaintiff. Several liability means that the plaintiff may
choose to sue only one of the defendants and recover
the entire amount. One PRP therefore can be held
liable for the entire cost of cleanup, regardless of the
share of waste that PRP contributed. Joint and
several liability is used only when harm is
indivisible. If defendants can apportion harm, there
is no several liability. See also Potentially Responsible
Party and Strict Liability.
' APPENDIX B: LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
B-11
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Lampblack
Lampblack is a finely divided, bulky, black soot, at
one time the most important black pigment used in
the manufacture of printing inks. It is one of several
gas plant residues found at manufactured gas plant
(MGP) sites. See also Manufactured Gas Plant.
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
LDR is a RCRA program that restricts the land
disposal of RCRA hazardous wastes and requires
treatment to established treatment standards or a
required technology. LDRs may be an important
ARAR for Superfund actions. See also Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirement and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
Landfarming
Landfarming is the spreading and incorporation of
wastes into the soil to initiate biological treatment.
Landfill
A sanitary landfill is a land disposal site for
nonhazardous solid wastes at which the waste is
spread in layers compacted to the smallest practical
volume.
Laser-Induced Fluorescence/Cone Penetrometer
Laser-induced fluorescence/cone penetrometer is a
field screening method that couples a fiber optic-
based chemical sensor system to a cone penetrometer
mounted on a truck. The technology can be used for
investigating and assessing soil and water
contamination.
Leachate
A leachate is a contaminated liquid that results when
water collects contaminants as it trickles through
wastes, agricultural pesticides, or fertilizers.
Leaching may occur in farming areas and landfills
and may be a means of the entry of hazardous
substances into soil, surface water, or groundwater.
Lead
Lead is a heavy metal that has been used in the
manufacture of gasoline, paints, and other
substances. See also Heavy Metal.
Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquid (LN APL)
An LNAPL is one of a group of organic substances
that are relatively insoluble in water and are less
dense than water. LNAPLs, such as oil, tend to
spread across the surface of the water table and form
a layer on top of the water table.
Long-Term Monitoring
Long-term monitoring of a site typically is performed
to verify that contaminants pose no risk to human
health or the environment and that natural processes
are reducing contaminant levels and risk as predicted.
Magnetrometry
Magnetrometry is a geophysical technology used to
detect disruptions that metal objects cause in the
earth's localized magnetic field.
Manufactured Gas Plant
Manufactured gas plants (MGP) were operated
nationwide from the early 1880s through the mid-
19008. MGPs produced gas from coal or oil for
lighting, heating, and cooking. The gas
manufacturing and purification processes conducted
at the plants yielded residues that included tars,
sludges, lampblack, light oils, spent oxide wastes, and
other hydrocarbon products. Although many of the
byproducts were recycled, excess residues containing
P AHs, petroleum hydrocarbons, benzene, cyanide,
metals, and phenols remained at MGP sites.
Mass Spectrometry
Mass spectrometry is a method of chemical analysis
in which the substance to be analyzed is heated and
placed in a vacuum. The resulting vapor is exposed
to a beam of electrons that causes ionization to occur,
either of the molecules or their fragments. The
ionized atoms are separated according to their mass
and can be identified on that basis.
Mechanical Soil Aeration
Mechanical soil aeration agitates contaminated soil
using tilling or other means to volatilize
contaminants.
Medium
A medium is a specific environment-air, water, or
soil-which is the subject of regulatory concern and
activities.
Mercury
Mercury is a heavy metal that can accumulate in the
environment and is found in thermometers,
measuring devices, pharmaceutical and agricultural
chemicals, chemical manufacturing, and electrical
equipment. See also Heavy Metal.
Mercury Vapor Analyzer
A mercury vapor analyzer is an instrument that
provides real-time measurements of concentrations of
mercury in the air.
B-12
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Metallophytes
Metallophytes are plants that preferentially colonize
in metal-rich soils.
Methane
Methane is a colorless, nonpoisonous, flammable gas
created by anaerobic decomposition of organic
compounds.
Methanogenic
The term methanogenic refers to anaerobic oxidation
of petroleum hydrocarbons, as well as fermentation of
hydrocarbons to methane.
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a synthetic
chemical, is a volatile, flammable, colorless liquid.
MTBE has a relatively high vapor pressure and is
water soluble to a significant degree. MTBE usually is
produced in a refinery by mixing a feedstock of
isobutylene with methanol. The isobutylene is derived
by steam-cracking during production of olef in and
fluid-cracking during production of gasoline.
Concern about them arises from its potential
contamination of groundwater as a result of releases
from underground storage tanks of gasoline that
contains oxygenates. See also Oxygenates.
Migration Pathway
A migration pathway is a potential path or route of
contaminants from the source of contamination to
contact with human populations or the environment.
Migration pathways include air, surface water,
groundwater, and land surface. The existence and
identification of all potential migration pathways
must be considered during assessment and
characterization of a waste site.
Mixed Waste
Mixed waste is low-level radioactive waste
contaminated with hazardous waste that is regulated
under RCRA. Mixed waste can be disposed only in
compliance with the requirements under RCRA that
govern disposal of hazardous waste and with the
RCRA land disposal restrictions, which require that
waste be treated before it is disposed of in appropriate
landfills.
Mobile Laboratory
A mobile laboratory refers to a collection of analytical
instruments contained in a vehicle that can be
deployed to a project site. A mobile laboratory offers
many of the advantages of a fixed laboratory, such as
protection from the elements, a power supply, and
climate control, while still providing the advantages
of analyzing samples on site while the project is in
progress. A mobile laboratory may even allow the use
of laboratory-grade instruments which otherwise
could not be taken into the field. Configurations can
vary in sophistication from a single instrument
mounted in a sampling van, to large truck trailers and
recreational vehicles equipped with multiple
instruments and laboratory-grade support equipment.
Monitored Natural Attenuation
The term monitored natural attenuation refers to the
remedial approach that allows natural processes to
reduce concentrations of contaminants to acceptable
levels. Monitored natural attenuation involves
physical, chemical, and biological processes that act
to reduce the mass, toxicity, and mobility of
subsurface contamination. Physical, chemical, and
biological processes involved in monitored natural
attenuation include biodegradarion, chemical
stabilization, dispersion, sorption, and volatilization.
Monitoring Well
A monitoring well is a well drilled at a specific
location on or off a hazardous waste site at which
groundwater can be sampled at selected depths and
studied to determine the direction of groundwater
flow and the types and quantities of contaminants
present in the groundwater.
Mothballed Sites
The term mothballed sites refers to large, idle areas
that formerly were used for manufacturing and other
industrial uses and are not available for sale or
redevelopment.
National Contingency Plan (NCP)
The NCP, formally the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Contingency Plan, is the major regulatory
framework that guides the Superfund response effort.
The NCP is a comprehensive body of regulations that
outlines a step-by-step process for implementing
Superfund responses and defines the roles and
responsibilities of EPA, other federal agencies, states,
private parties, and the communities in response to
situations in which hazardous substances are
released into the environment. See also Superfund.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)
NPDES is the primary permitting program under the
Clean Water Act, which regulates all discharges to
surface water. It prohibits discharge of pollutants
into waters of the United States unless EPA, a state, or
a tribal government issues a special permit to do so.
• APPENDIX B: LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
B-13
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
National Priorities List (NPL)
The NPL is EPA's list of the most serious
uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites
identified for possible long-term remedial response
under Superfund. Inclusion of a site on the list is
based primarily on the score the site receives under
the HRS. Money from Superfund can be used for
cleanup only at sites that are on the NPL. EPA is
required to update the NPL at least once a year. See
also Hazard Ranking System and Superfund.
National Response Center (NRC)
The NRC, staffed by the U.S. Coast Guard, is a
communications center that receives reports of
discharges or releases of hazardous substances into
the environment. The U.S. Coast Guard in turn, relays
information about such releases to the appropriate
federal agency.
Neutralization
Neutralization is a chemical reaction between an acid
and a base. The reaction involves acidic or caustic
wastes that are neutralized using caustic or acid
additives.
Nitric Oxide
Nitric oxide is a gas formed by combustion under
high temperature and high pressure in an internal
combustion engine.
Nonaqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL)
NAPLs are organic substances that are relatively
insoluble in water and are less dense than water. See
also Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid and Light
Nonaqueous Phase Liquid.
Non-Point Source
The term non-point source is used to identify sources
of pollution that are diffuse and do not have a point
of origin or that are not introduced into a receiving
stream from a specific outlet. Common non-point
sources are rain water, runoff from agricultural lands,
industrial sites, parking lots, and timber operations,
as well as escaping gases from pipes and fittings.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
O&M refers to the activities conducted at a site,
following remedial actions, to ensure that the cleanup
methods are working properly. O&M activities are
conducted to maintain the effectiveness of the remedy
and to ensure that no new threat to human health or
the environment arises. Under the Superfund
program, the state or PRP assumes responsibility for
O&M, which may include such activities as
groundwater and air monitoring, inspection and
maintenance of the treatment equipment remaining
on site, and maintenance of any security measures or
institutional controls.
Organic Chemical or Compound
An organic chemical or compound is a substance
produced by animals or plants that contains mainly
carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
Oxygenate
Oxygenates are hydrocarbons added to fuels to
increase the oxygen content of those fuels to improve
combustion, thereby reducing emissions, such as
carbon monoxide and other pollutants. Examples of
oxygenates include methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE), ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), tertiary amyl
methyl ether (TAME), ethanol, and other ethers and
alcohols. See also Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether.
Ozone
Ozone is a form of oxygen found naturally which
provides a protective layer in the stratosphere
shielding the earth from the harmful health effects on
human health and the environment from ultraviolet
radiation. Ozone also is a chemical oxidant and a
major component of smog in the troposphere, the
earth's atmospheric layer below the stratosphere
extending 7 to 10 miles from the earth's surface.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
PCP, a chemical compound containing carbon,
chlorine, oxygen, and hydrogen, is a contaminant
used in feed stock material and chemical
manufacturing.
Performance-Based Measurement System (PBMS)
EPA defines PBMS as a set of processes through
which the data needs or limitations of a program or
project are specified and serve as criteria for selected
appropriate methods to meet those needs in a cost-
effective manner. EPA uses the term to convey what
must be accomplished, but not prescriptively how to
do it. The PBMS initiative places regulatory emphasis
on obtaining analytical results that provide adequate
information to support the regulatory decision, but
leaves the choice of analytical procedures up to the
user. The PBMS approach gives regulators and
members of the regulated community increased
flexibility in selecting technologies, while still
meeting mandated monitoring requirements. The use
of PBMS is intended to reduce barriers to the use of
new monitoring technologies.
B-14
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Permeability
Permeability is a characteristic that represents a
qualitative description of the relative ease with which
rock, soil, or sediment will transmit a fluid (liquid or
gas).
Permeable Reactive Barriers
Permeable reactive barriers, also known as passive
treatment walls, are installed across the flow path of a
contaminated plume. As groundwater flows through
the PRB, contaminants are either degraded or retained
in a concentrated form by the reactive material.
Examples of reactive media include zero-valent
metals, chelators, sorbents, and microbes.
Pesticide
A pesticide is a substance or mixture of substances
intended to prevent or mitigate infestation by, or
destroy or repel, any pest. Pesticides can accumulate
in the food chain and or contaminate the environment
if misused.
Phase I Environmental Assessment
A Phase I environmental assessment is an initial
environmental investigation that is limited to a
historical records search to determine ownership of a
site and to identify the kinds of chemical processes
that were carried out at the site. A Phase I assessment
includes a site visit, but does not include any
sampling. If such an assessment identifies no
significant concerns, Phase II and III audits are not
necessary. Phase I assessments also are commonly
referred to as site assessments.
Phase II Environmental Assessment
A Phase II environmental assessment is an
investigation that includes tests performed at the site
to confirm the location and identity of environmental
hazards. The assessment includes preparation of a
report that includes recommendations for cleanup
alternatives. Phase II assessments also are commonly
referred to as site investigations.
Phase III Environmental Audit
A Phase III environmental audit is the third step in
the assessment that includes the removal of
contaminated materials from a site and their legal
disposal.
Phenols
A phenol is one of a group of organic compounds that
are byproducts of petroleum refining, tanning, and
textile, dye, and resin manufacturing.
Photoionization Detector (PID)
A PID is a nondestructive detector, often used in
conjunction with gas chromatography, that measures
the change of signal as analytes are ionized by an
ultraviolet lamp. The PID also is used to detect VOCs
and petroleum hydrocarbons. See also Portable Gas
Chromatography.
Physical Separation
Physical separation processes use different size
sieves and screens to concentrate contaminants into
smaller volumes. Most organic and inorganic
contaminants tend to bind, either chemically or
physically, to the fine fraction of the soil. Fine clay
and silt particles are separated from the coarse sand
and gravel soil particles to concentrate the
contaminants into a smaller volume of soil that could
then be further treated or disposed.
Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation is an innovative treatment
technology that uses plants and trees to clean up
contaminated soil and water. Plants can break down,
or degrade, organic pollutants or stabilize metal
contaminants by acting as filters or traps.
Phytoremediation can be used to clean up metals,
pesticides, solvents, explosives, crude oil,
polyaromatic carbons, and landfill leachates. Its use
generally is limited to sites at which concentrations of
contaminants are relatively low and contamination is
found in shallow soils, streams, and groundwater.
Phytotechnology
The term phytotechnology refers to technologies that
use living plants. See also Phytoremediation.
Phytotoxic
The term phytotoxic is used to describe a substance
that is harmful to plants.
Plasma High-Temperature Metals Recovery
Plasma high-temperature metals recovery is a thermal
treatment process that purges contaminants from
solids and soils such as metal fumes and organic
vapors. The vapors can be burned as fuel, and the
metal fumes can be recovered and recycled. This
innovative treatment technology is used to treat
contaminated soil and groundwater.
Plume
A plume is a visible or measurable emission or
discharge of a contaminant from a given point of
origin into any medium. The term also is used to refer
to measurable and potentially harmful radiation
leaking from a damaged reactor.
• APPENDIX B: LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
B-15
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Point Source
A point source is a stationary location or fixed facility
from which pollutants are discharged or emitted or
any single, identifiable discharge point of pollution,
such as a pipe, ditch, or smokestack.
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB)
PCBs are a group of toxic, persistent chemicals,
produced by chlorination of biphenyl, that once were
used in high voltage electrical transformers because
they conducted heat well while being fire resistant
and good electrical insulators. These contaminants
typically are generated from metal degreasing, printed
circuit board cleaning, gasoline, and wood preserving
processes.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH)
A PAH is a chemical compound that contains more
than one fused benzene ring. They are commonly
found in petroleum fuels, coal products, and tar.
Potassium Permanganate
Potassium permanganate is a crystalline compound
that is soluble in water, acetone, and methanol, but is
decomposed by ethanol. It is used widely as a
powerful oxidizing agent, as a disinfectant in a variety
of applications, and as an analytical oxidant reagent
in redox titrarions.
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)
A PRP is an individual or company (such as owners,
operators, transporters, or generators of hazardous
waste) that is potentially responsible for, or
contributing to, the contamination problems at a
Superf und site. Whenever possible, EPA requires
PRPs, through administrative and legal actions, to
clean up hazardous waste sites they have
contaminated. See also Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and Superfund.
Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection (PA/SI)
A PA/SI is the process of collecting and reviewing
available information about a known or suspected
hazardous waste site or release. The PA/SI usually
includes a visit to the site.
Presumptive Remedies
Presumptive remedies are preferred technologies for
common categories of CERCL A sites that have been
identified through historical patterns of remedy
selection and EPA's scientific and engineering
evaluation of performance data on technology
implementation.
Pump and Treat
Pump and treat is a general term used to describe
remediation methods that involve the pumping of
groundwater to the surface for treatment. It is one of
the most common methods of treating polluted
aquifers and groundwater.
Quality Assurance (QA)
QA is a system of management activities that ensure
that a process, item, or service is of the type and
quality needed by the user. QA deals with setting
policy and implementing an administrative system of
management controls that cover planning,
implementation, and review of data collection
activities. QA is an important element of a quality
system that ensures that all research design and
performance, environmental monitoring and
sampling, and other technical and reporting activities
conducted by EPA are of the highest possible quality.
Quality Control (QC)
QC refers to scientific precautions, such as
calibrations and duplications, that are necessary if
data of known and adequate quality are to be
acquired. QC is technical in nature and is
implemented at the project level. Like QA, QC is an
important element of a quality system that ensures
that all research design and performance,
environmental monitoring and sampling, and other
technical and reporting activities conducted by EPA
are of the highest possible quality.
Radioactive Waste
Radioactive waste is any waste that emits energy as
rays, waves, or streams of energetic particles. Sources
of such wastes include nuclear reactors, research
institutions, and hospitals.
Radionuclide
A radionuclide is a radioactive element characterized
according to its atomic mass and atomic number,
which can be artificial or naturally occurring.
Radionuclides have a long life as soil or water
pollutants. Radionuclides cannot be destroyed or
degraded; therefore, applicable technologies involve
separation, concentration and volume reduction,
immobilization, or vitrification. See also Solidification
and Stabilization.
Radon
Radon is a colorless, naturally occurring, radioactive,
inert gaseous element formed by radioactive decay of
radium atoms. See also Radioactive Waste and
Radionuclide.
B-16
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA)
A RFA is performed at a facility to determine the
existence of any continuous or non-continuous
releases of wastes. During the RFA, EPA or state
regulators gather information on solid waste
management units and other areas of concern at
RCRA facilities, evaluate this information to
determine whether there are releases that warrant
further investigation and action, and determine the
need to proceed to a RCRA Facility Investigation. See
also Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI)
The purpose of a RFI is to gather sufficient data at a
facility to fully characterize the nature, extent, and
rate of migration of contaminant releases identified in
the RCRA Facility Assessment. The data generated
during the RFI is used to determine the potential need
for corrective measures and to aid in the selection and
implementation of these measures. See also Corrective
Measure Study and Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act.
Reactivity
Reactive wastes are unstable under normal
conditions. They can create explosions and or toxic
fumes, gases, and vapors when mixed with water.
Record of Decision (ROD)
A ROD is a legal, technical, and public document that
explains which cleanup alternative will be used at a
Superfund NPL site. The ROD is based on
information and technical analysis generated during
the remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/
FS) and consideration of public comments and
community concerns. See also Preliminary Assessment
and Site Investigation and Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study.
Release
A release is any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring,
emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, leaching,
dumping, or disposing into the environment of a
hazardous or toxic chemical or extremely hazardous
substance, as defined under RCRA. See also Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA)
The RD/RA is the step in the Superfund cleanup
process that follows the RI/FS and selection of a
remedy. An RD is the preparation of engineering
plans and specifications to properly and effectively
implement the remedy. The RA is the actual
construction or implementation of the remedy. See
also Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
The RI/FS is the step in the Superfund cleanup
process that is conducted to gather sufficient
information to support the selection of a site remedy
that will reduce or eliminate the risks associated with
contamination at the site. The RI involves site
characterization — collection of data and information
necessary to characterize the nature and extent of
contamination at the site. The RI also determines
whether the contamination presents a significant risk
to human health or the environment. The FS focuses
on the development of specific response alternatives
for addressing contamination at a site.
Removal Action
A removal action usually is a short-term effort
designed to stabilize or clean up a hazardous waste
site that poses an immediate threat to human health
or the environment. Removal actions include
removing tanks or drums of hazardous substances
that were found on the surface and installing
drainage controls or security measures, such as a
fence at the site. Removal actions also may be
conducted to respond to accidental releases of
hazardous substances. CERCLA places time and
money constraints on the duration of removal actions.
See also Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act.
Reportable Quantity (RQ)
The RQ is the quantity of hazardous substances that,
when released into the environment, can cause
substantial endangerment to public health or the
environment. Under CERCLA, the federal government
must be notified when quantities equaling or
exceeding RQs specified in regulations are released.
Representative Sampling
The term representative sampling refers to a portion of
material or water that is as nearly identical in content
and consistency as possible to that in a larger body of
material or water being sampled. To prevent
segregation and to provide a level of accuracy, the
sample is representative of the volume and nature of
the material being sampled.
Resin
Resins are solids or semi-solids of plant origin used
principally in lacquers, varnishes, inks, adhesives,
synthetic plastics, and pharmaceuticals.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA is a federal law enacted in 1976 that
established a regulatory system to track hazardous
substances from their generation to their disposal.
• APPENDIX B: LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
B-17
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
The law requires the use of safe and secure
procedures in treating, transporting, storing, and
disposing of hazardous substances. RCRA is
designed to prevent the creation of new, uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites.
Response Action
A response action is a short-term removal action or a
long-term remedial response, authorized under
CERCLA that is taken at a site to address releases of
hazardous substances.
Reuse Assessment
A reuse assessment involves the collection and
evaluation of information to develop assumptions
about reasonably anticipated future land use(s) at
Superf und sites. It provides a tool for implementing
the Superfund land use directive and can involve a
review of available records, visual inspections of the
site, and discussions with local government officials,
property owners, and community members about
potential future land uses.
Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA)
As defined by EPA, RBCA is a streamlined approach
through which exposure and risk assessment
practices are integrated with traditional components
of the corrective action process to ensure that
appropriate and cost-effective remedies are selected
and that limited resources are allocated properly.
RBCA refers specifically to the standard Guide for
Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied At Petroleum
Release Sites, published by ASTM. The RBCA process
can be tailored to applicable state and local laws and
regulatory practices. See also American Society for
Testing and Materials.
Risk-Based Decision-Making (RBDM)
The term RBDM refers to a process through which
decisions are made about contaminated sites
according to the risk each site poses to human health
and the environment. RBDM is a mechanism for
identifying necessary and appropriate action at any
phase of the corrective action process. Depending on
known or anticipated risks to human health and the
environment, appropriate action can include site
closure, monitoring and data collection, active or
passive remediation, containment, or imposition of
institutional controls.
Risk Communication
Risk communication, the exchange of information
about health or environmental risks among risk
assessors, risk managers, the local community, news
media and interest groups, is the process of informing
members of the local community about environmental
risks associated with a site and the steps that are
being taken to manage those risks.
Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 was
established to protect the quality of drinking water in
the United States. The act focuses on all waters
actually or potentially designed for use as drinking
water, whether from aboveground or underground
sources. The Act authorized EPA to establish safe
standards of purity and requires all owners or
operators of public water systems to comply with
primary (health-related) standards. State governments
that assume that authority from EPA also encourage
attainment of secondary (nuisance-related) standards.
Sampling and Analysis Plan
A sampling and analysis plan (SAP) documents the
procedural and analytical requirements for a one-time
or time-limited project that involves the collection of
samples of water, soil, sediment, or other media to
characterize areas of potential environmental
contamination. A SAP contains all the elements of a
quality assurance project plan (QAPP) and a field
sampling plan (FSP) that must be provided to meet the
requirements for any project funded by the EPA under
which environmental measurements are to be taken.
Sanborn Map
A Sanborn map is a record kept for insurance
purposes that shows, for a specific property, the
locations of such items as USTs, buildings, and areas
where chemicals have been used for certain industrial
processes. A Phase I environmental audit includes a
review of Sanborn maps. See also Phase I
Environmental Audit.
Saturated Zone
The saturated zone is the area beneath the surface of
the land in which all openings are filled with water.
Seismic Reflection and Refraction
Seismic reflection and refraction is a technology used
to examine the geophysical features of soil and
bedrock, such as debris, buried channels, and other
features.
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (SVOC)
SVOCs, composed primarily of carbon and hydrogen
atoms, have boiling points greater than 200°C.
Common SVOCs include PCBs and phenol. See also
Phenol and Polychlorinated Biphenyl.
B-18
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Significant Threat
The term refers to the level of contamination that a
state would consider significant enough to warrant
an action. The thresholds vary from state to state.
Six-Phase Soil Heating
Six-phase soil heating is an in situ thermal technology
for the remediation of contamination of soil and
groundwater. The process splits conventional
electricity into six electrical phases for the electrical
resistive heating of soil and groundwater. Each
electrical phase is delivered to one of six electrodes
placed in a hexagonal array. The voltage gradient
between phases causes an electrical current to flow
through the soil and groundwater. Resistivity causes
the temperature to rise. As the soil and groundwater
are heated uniformly to the boiling point of water, the
water becomes steam, stripping volatile and
semivolatile contaminants from the pore spaces. In
addition, removal of the soil moisture increases the air
permeability of the soils, which can further increase the
rate at which contaminants are removed.
Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer
System
The Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer
System (SC APS) was developed by the Division of the
Naval Command, Control, and Ocean Surveillance
Center (NCCOSC), in collaboration with the U.S. Army
and the U. S. Air Force. SCAPS, a cone penetrometer
testing system, coupled with laser-induced
fluorescence (LIP), measures fluorescence with optical
fibers. The measurement is made through a sapphire
window on a probe that is pushed into the ground
with a truck-mounted cone penetrometer testing
platform. Seealso Cone Penetrometer and Laser-Induced
Fluorescence/Cone Penetrometer.
Sludge
Sludge is a semisolid residue from air or water
treatment processes. Residues from treatment of metal
wastes and the mixture of waste and soil at the
bottom of a waste lagoon are examples of sludge,
which can be a hazardous waste.
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation
Slurry-phase bioremediation, a treatment technology
that can be used alone or in conjunction with other
biological, chemical, and physical treatments, is a
process through which organic contaminants are
converted to innocuous compounds. Slurry-phase
bioremediation can be effective in treating various
SVOCs and nonvolatile organic compounds, as well
as fuels, creosote, PCPs, and PCBs.
Soil Boring
Soil boring is a process by which a soil sample is
extracted from the ground for chemical, biological,
and analytical testing to determine the level of
contamination present.
Soil Flushing
In soil flushing, large volumes of water, at times
supplemented with treatment compounds, are applied
to the soil or injected into the groundwater to raise the
water table into the zone of contaminated soil.
Contaminants are leached into the groundwater, and
the extraction fluids are recovered from the underlying
aquifer. When possible, the fluids are recycled.
Soil Gas
Soil gas consists of gaseous elements and compounds
that occur in the small spaces between particles of the
earth and soil. Such gases can move through or leave
the soil or rock, depending on changes in pressure.
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
SVE is a process that physically separates
contaminants from soil in a vapor form by exerting a
vacuum through the soil formation. SVE removes
VOCs and some SVOCs from soil beneath the ground
surface.
Soil Washing
Soil washing is an innovative treatment technology
that uses liquids (usually water, sometimes combined
with chemical additives) and a mechanical process to
scrub soils, removes hazardous contaminants, and
concentrates the contaminants into a smaller volume.
The technology is used to treat a wide range of
contaminants, such as metals, gasoline, fuel oils, and
pesticides. Soil washing is a relatively low-cost
alternative for separating waste and minimizing
volume as necessary to facilitate subsequent
treatment. It is often used in combination with other
treatment technologies. The technology can be
brought to the site, thereby eliminating the need to
transport hazardous wastes.
Solidification and Stabilization
Solidification and stabilization are the processes of
removing wastewater from a waste or changing it
chemically to make the waste less permeable and
susceptible to transport by water. Solidification and
stabilization technologies can immobilize many
heavy metals, certain radionuclides, and selected
organic compounds, while decreasing the surface
area and permeability of many types of sludge,
contaminated soils, and solid wastes.
• APPENDIX B: LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
B-19
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Solubility
Solubility is a measure of the amount of solute that will
dissolve in a solution. It is the ability or tendency of one
substance to dissolve into another at a given
temperature and pressure and is generally expressed in
terms of the amount of solute that will dissolve in a
given amount of solvent to produce a saturated solution.
Solvent
A solvent is a substance, usually liquid, that is capable
of dissolving or dispersing one or more other
substances.
Solvent Extraction
Solvent extraction is an innovative treatment technology
that uses a solvent to separate or remove hazardous
organic contaminants from oily-type wastes, soils,
sludges, and sediments. The technology does not
destroy contaminants, but concentrates them so they can
be recycled or destroyed more easily by another
technology. Solvent extraction has been shown to be
effective in treating sediments, sludges, and soils that
contain primarily organic contaminants, such as PCBs,
VOCs, halogenated organic compounds, and petroleum
wastes. Such contaminants typically are generated from
metal degreasing, printed circuit board cleaning,
gasoline, and wood preserving processes. Solvent
extraction is a transportable technology that can be
brought to the site. See also Halogenated Organic
Compound, Poly chlorinated Biphenyl, and Volatile Organic
Compound.
Standard Operating Procedure
A standard operating procedure (SOP) is a step-by-step
procedure that promotes uniformity in operations to
help clarify and augment such operations. SOPs
document the way activities are to be performed to
facilitate consistent conformance to technical and
quality system requirements and to support data
quality. The use of SOPs is an integral part of a
successful quality system because SOPs provide
individuals with the information needed to perform a
job properly and facilitate consistency in the quality
and integrity of a product or end result. SOPs also
provide guidance in areas in which the exercise of
professional judgment is necessary and specify
procedures that are unique to each task.
Steam Injection
Steam injection is a remediation technology that uses
the addition of steam to the subsurface to heat the soil
and groundwater and drive off contaminants. The
technology was developed by the petroleum industry to
enhance recovery of oils from reservoirs, and has been
adapted by the remediation industry for use in the
recovery of organic contaminants from the subsurface.
Stratigraphy
Stratigraphy is the study of the formation,
composition, and sequence of sediments, whether
consolidated or not.
Strict Liability
Strict liability is a concept under CERCLA that
empowers the federal government to hold PRPs liable
without proving that the PRPs were at fault and
without regard to a PRP's motive. PRPs can be found
liable even if the problems caused by the release of a
hazardous substance were unforeseeable, the PRPs
acted in good faith, and state-of-the-art hazardous
waste management practices were used at the time the
materials were disposed of. See also Potentially
Responsible Party.
Subsurface
Underground; beneath the surface.
Surfactant Flushing
Surfactant flushing is a technology used to treat
contaminated groundwater. Surfactant flushing of
NAPLs increases the solubility and mobility of the
contaminants in water so that the NAPLs can be
biodegraded more easily in an aquifer or recovered for
treatment aboveground. See also Nonaqueous Phase
Liquid.
Surface Water
Surface water is all water naturally open to the
atmosphere, such as rivers, lakes, reservoirs, streams,
and seas.
Superfund
Superfund is the trust fund that provides for the
cleanup of hazardous substances released into the
environment, regardless of fault. The Superfund was
established under CERCLA and subsequent
amendments to CERCLA. The term Superfund also is
used to refer to cleanup programs designed and
conducted under CERCLA and its subsequent
amendments. See also Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act
(SARA)
SARA is the 1986 act amending CERCLA that
increased the size of the Superfund trust fund and
established a preference for the development and use
of permanent remedies, and provided new
enforcement and settlement tools. See also
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act.
B-20
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program
The SITE program is an effort established by EPA in
1986 to advance the development, evaluation, and
commercialization of innovative treatment
technologies for assessing and cleaning up
hazardous waste sites. The program provides an
opportunity for technology developers to demonstrate
their technologies' ability to successfully process and
remediate hazardous waste. The SITE program has
four components—the Emerging Technology
Program, the Demonstration Program, the
Measurement and Monitoring Program, and the
Technology Transfer Program.
Systematic Planning
Systematic planning is a planning process that is
based on the scientific method. It is a common-sense
approach designed to ensure that the level of detail in
planning is commensurate with the importance and
intended use of the data, as well as the available
resources. Systematic planning is important to the
successful execution of all activities at hazardous
waste sites, but it is particularly important to
dynamic field activities because those activities rely
on rapid decision-making. The data quality objective
(DQO) process is one formalized process of systematic
planning. All dynamic field activities must be
designed through the use of systematic planning,
whether using DQO steps or some other system. See
also Data Quality Objective.
Test Methods for Evaluating Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods (SW-846)
SW-846 refers to an EPA guidance and reference
document, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods, which is intended to assist
analytical chemists and other users in the RCRA and
Superfund programs by suggesting procedures that
analysts have found to be successful when applied to
typical samples. The SW-846 methods are analytical
and sampling methods that have been evaluated and
approved for use in complying with RCRA
regulations. The methods are not intended to be
prescriptive, nor are all technologies or methods that
may be used are identified.
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethene is a nonflammable manufactured
chemical widely used for dry cleaning fabrics and in
metal-degreasing operations. It also is used as a
starting material (building block) for the production of
other manufactured chemicals. Other names for
tetrachloroethene include PERC, tetrachloroethylene,
perchloroethylene, and PCE.
Thermal Desorption
Thermal desorption is an innovative treatment
technology that heats soils contaminated with
hazardous wastes to temperatures from 200 to 1,000°F
so that contaminants that have low boiling points
will vaporize and separate from the soil. The
vaporized contaminants then are collected for further
treatment or destruction, typically by an air emissions
treatment system. The technology is most effective at
treating VOCs, SVOCs and other organic
contaminants, such as PCBs, PAHs, and pesticides. It
is effective in separating organics from refining
wastes, coal tar wastes, waste from wood treatment,
and paint wastes. It also can separate solvents,
pesticides, PCBs, dioxins, and fuel oils from
contaminated soil. See also Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon,
Polychlorinated Biphenyl, Semivolatile Organic
Compound, and Volatile Organic Compound.
Toluene
Toluene is a colorless liquid chemical with a sweet,
strong odor. It is used as a solvent in aviation
gasoline and in making other chemicals, perfumes,
medicines, dyes, explosives, and detergents.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH)
TPH refers to a measure of concentration or mass of
petroleum hydrocarbon constituents present in a
given amount of air, soil, or water.
Toxicity
Toxicity is a quantification of the degree of danger
posed by a substance to animal or plant life.
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
The TCLP is a testing procedure used to identify the
toxicity of wastes and is the most commonly used test
for degree of mobilization offered by a solidification
and stabilization process. Under this procedure, a
waste is subjected to a process designed to model the
leaching effects that would occur if the waste was
disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle D municipal landfill.
See also Solidification and Stabilization.
Toxic Substance
A toxic substance is a chemical or mixture that may
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment.
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
TSCA was enacted in 1976 to test, regulate, and
screen all chemicals produced or imported into the
U.S. TSCA requires that any chemical that reaches the
consumer marketplace be tested for possible toxic
• APPENDIX B: LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
B-21
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
effects prior to commercial manufacture. Any existing
chemical that poses health and environmental
hazards is tracked and reported under TSCA.
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility (TSD)
TSDs are sites at which hazardous substances are
treated, stored, or disposed. TSD facilities are
regulated by EPA and states under RCRA. See also
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Trichloroethene (TCE)
TCE is a stable, low-boiling colorless liquid that is
used as a solvent, metal degreasing agent, and in
other industrial applications. TCE also is known as
trichloroethylene.
Ultraviolet (UV) Fluorescence
An UV fluorescence system and analytical technique
is based on imaging of UV-excited fluorescence from a
contaminant. A camera is gated and synchronized
with a pulsed UV light source to refuse interfering
ambient light. Under computer control, a liquid
crystal tuned filter (LCTF) selects the spectral band of
fluorescence. As an alternative, an interference filter
can be used to provide a higher light throughout at a
particular spectral region. The multispectral features
allow optimization of the detection of a particular
contaminant on a selected material surface. The
system is transportable and the imaging head is small
enough to be mounted on a tripod or controlled by
robots.
Uncertainty
The term uncertainty refers to the inherent unknown
quantities present in all scientific and technical
decisions. Uncertainties can arise from incomplete
knowledge of the nature and extent of contamination,
an inability to predict a technology's performance
under site-specific conditions, or new or changing
regulatory requirements.
Underground Injection Control
Underground injection control (UIC) is the prevention
of contamination by keeping injected fluids within the
well and the intended injection zone or, in the case of
the injection of fluids directly or indirectly into an
underground source of drinking water (USDW),
ensuring that injected fluids do not cause a public
water system to violate drinking-water standards or
otherwise have an adverse effect on public health. The
minimum requirements affect the siting of an injection
well and the construction, operation, maintenance,
monitoring, testing, and closure of the well.
Underground Storage Tank (UST)
A UST is a tank and any underground piping
connected to the tank that is used to contain gasoline
or other petroleum products or chemical solutions
and that is placed in such a manner that at least 10
percent of its combined volume is underground.
Unexploded Ordnance
The term exploded ordnance refers to any munition,
weapon delivery system, or ordnance item that
contains explosives, propellants, and chemical agents.
Unexploded ordnance (UXO) consists of the same
items after they: (1) have been armed or otherwise
prepared for action; (2) have been launched, placed,
fired, or released in such a manner as to constitute a
hazard to operations, installations, personnel, or
material; and (3) remain unexploded either by design
or by malfunction, or for any other reason.
Unsaturated Zone
The unsaturated zone is the area between the land
surface and the uppermost aquifer (or saturated
zone). The soils in an unsaturated zone may contain
air and water.
Vadose Zone
The vadose zone is the area between the surface of the
land and the surface of the water table in which the
moisture content is less than the saturation point and
the pressure is less than atmospheric. The openings
(pore spaces) also typically contain air or other gases.
Vapor
Vapor is the gaseous phase of any substance that is
liquid or solid at atmospheric temperatures and
pressures. Steam is an example of a vapor.
Vitrification
Vitrification is a process that uses electrical power to
heat and melt soil contaminated with organic or
inorganic contaminants. As the molten material cools,
it forms a hard glass and crystalline product that
incorporates the contaminants. Vitrification can be
performed in situ or ex situ and typically involves
temperatures above 2,OOOEC.
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
A VOC is one of a group of carbon-containing
compounds that evaporate readily at room
temperature. Examples of VOCs include
trichloroethane; trichloroethylene; and BTEX. These
contaminants typically are generated from metal
degreasing, printed circuit board cleaning, gasoline,
and wood preserving processes.
B-22
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Volatilization
Volatilization is the process of transfer of a chemical
from the aqueous or liquid phase to the gas phase.
Solubility, molecular weight, and vapor pressure of
the liquid and the nature of the gas-liquid affect the
rate of volatilization.
Voltammetric Stripping
Voltammetric stripping is a field-portable technology
that uses electrochemistry to detect and quantify
metals in environmental samples. Specific metals can
be targeted for detection and quantification by the
technology, which generally is applied to water
samples.
Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP)
A VCP is a formal means established by many states
to facilitate assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment
of brownfields sites. VCPs typically address the
identification and cleanup of potentially
contaminated sites that are not on the Superf und
NPL. Under VCPs, owners or developers of a site are
encouraged to approach the state voluntarily to work
out a process by which the site can be readied for
development. Many state VCPs provide technical
assistance, liability assurances, and funding support
for such efforts. See also National Priorities List.
Wastewater
Wastewater is spent or used water from an individual
home, a community, a farm, or an industry that
contains dissolved or suspended matter.
Water Table
A water table is the boundary between the saturated
and unsaturated zones beneath the surface of the
earth, the level of groundwater, and generally is the
level to which water will rise in a well. See also
Aquifer and Groundwater.
X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzer
An x-ray fluorescence analyzer is a self-contained,
field-portable instrument, consisting of an energy
dispersive x-ray source, a detector, and a data
processing system that detects and quantifies
individual metals or groups of metals.
Zoning
Zoning is the exercise of the civil authority of a
municipality to regulate and control the character and
use of property.
• APPENDIX B: LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS B-23
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Appendix C
LIST OF BROWNFIELDS
AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT CONTACTS
The lists included in this appendix identify contacts at the state and EPA regional levels, as well as EPA
technical support staff in the Technology Innovation Office and the Office of Research and Development.
The individuals are available to assist cleanup and redevelopment efforts at brownfields sites.
The points of contact listed are current, according to information available at the time of publication.
State Brownfields Contacts C-2
EPA Regional Brownfields Coordinators C-6
An online list of regional contacts is available at
www. epa.gov/swerosps/bf/regcntct. htm
EPA Technical Support Contacts C-7
• APPENDIX C: LIST OF BROWNFIELDS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT CONTACTS C-1
-------
MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
State
Brownfields
Contacts
CALIFORNIA
DELAWARE
ALABAMA
www.adem.state.al.us/
Stephen Cobb
Hazardous Waste Branch, Land
Division
AL Department of Environmental
Management
1400 Coliseum Boulevard
Montgomery, AL 36110-2059
Phone: (334)271-7739
Fax: (334) 279-3050
E-mail: sac@adem.state.al.us
ALASKA
www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/
ENV.CONSERV/home.htm
Anne Marie Palmier!
AK Department of Environmental
Conservation
Spill and Prevention Response
410 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau,AK 99801
Phone: (907)766-3184
Fax: (907) 465-5262
E-mail: apalmieri@envirocon.state.ak.us
ARIZONA
www2.ev.state.az.us/index.html
Al Roesler
AZ Department of Environmental
Quality
Voluntary Sites Unit
3033 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (602)207-4166
Fax: (602) 207-4236
E-mail: roesler.al@ev.state.az.us
ARKANSAS
www.adecj.state.ar.us/hazwaste/
Mike Bates
Hazardous Waste Division
AR Department of Environmental
Quality
8001 National Drive
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
Phone: (501)682-0831
Fax: (501)682-0565
E-mail: bates@adeq.state.ar.us
James Frank
AR Department of Environmental
Quality
8001 National Drive
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
Phone: (501)682-0854
Fax: (501)682-0565
E-mail: franks@adeq.state.ar.us
www.calepa.ca.gov/
Megan Cambridge
Northern California - Central Cleanup
Operations Branch
Department of Toxic Substances Control
California Environmental Protection
Agency
8800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento, CA 95826-3200
Phone: (916)225-3727
Fax: (916)255-3697
Tina Diaz
Southern California Cleanup Operations
Branch
Department of Toxic Substances Control
1011 North Grandview Avenue
Glendale,CA 91201
Phone: (818)551-2862
Fax: (818)551-2832
Tom Kovac
Northern California - Central Cleanup
Operations Branch
Department of Toxic Substances Control
California Environmental Protection
Agency
1515 Tollhouse Road
Clovis, CA 93611
Phone: (209)297-3939
Fax: (209)297-3931
Janet Naito/Lynn Nakashima
Northern California Coastal Operations
Branch
Department of Toxic Substances Control
700 Heinz Avenue
Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (510) 540-3833/3839
Fax: (510)540-3819
COLORADO
www.state.co.us/gov_dir/cdphe_dir/hm
Daniel Scheppers
Hazardous Waste Materials and Waste
Management Division
CO Department of Public Health and
Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
Phone: (303)692-3398
Fax: (303) 759-5355
E-mail: daniel.scheppers@state.co.us
CONNECTICUT
http://dep.sta.te. ct. us/
Doug Zimmerman
CT Department of Environmental
Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
Phone: (860)424-3800
Fax: (860)424-4057
http://sirb.awm.dnrec.state.de.us/
Karl Kalbacher
Site Investigation and Restoration
Branch
DE Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
715 Grantham Lane
New Castle, DE 19720-4801
Phone: (302)323-4540
Fax: (302) 323-4561
E-mail: kkalbacher@state.de.us
Steve Seidel
Department of Revenue
820 N. French Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302)577-8455
Fax: (302) 577-8656
E-mail: sseidel@de.state.us
FLORIDA
www.dep.state.fl.us/
Roger B. Register
Brownfields Liaison
FL Department of Environmental
Protection
MS 4505
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Phone: (850)413-0062
Fax: (850) 922-4368
E-mail: register_r@dep.state.fl.us
GEORGIA
www.dnr. state, ga.us/dnr/environ
Darren Meadows
Environmental Protection Division
GA Department of Natural Resources
Suite 1462
205 Butler Street, SE
Atlanta, GA 30334
Phone: (404)657-8600
Fax: (404)657-0307
E-mail: darren_meadows@mail.dnr.
state.ga.us
HAWAII
www.hawaii.gov/health
Bryce Hatoaka
Environmental Management Division
HI Department of Health, Hazard
Evaluation and Emergency Response
919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Suite 206
Honolulu, HI 96814
Phone: (808)586-4248
Fax: (808) 586-7537
E-mail: bhatoaka@eha.health.state.hi.us
C-2
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
STATE BROWNFIELDS CONTACTS (continued)
IDAHO
KENTUCKY
MICHIGAN
www2 .state.id. us/deq
Dean Nygard
Division of Environmental Quality
ID Department of Health and Welfare
1410 N. Hilton Street
Boise, ID 83706
Phone: (208)373-0276
Fax: (208) 373-0576
ILLINOIS
www.epa.state.il.us/
Larry Eastep
Division of Land Pollution Control
IL Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Phone: (217) 782-9802
Fax: (217) 782-3258
E-mail: larry.eastep@epa.state.il.us
INDIANA
www.ai.org/idem/oer/index.html
Peggy Dorsey
Voluntary Remediation Program
IN Department of Environmental
Management
P.O. Box 6015
100 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
Phone: (317)234-0966
E-mail: pdorsey@dem.state.in.us
IOWA
www.state.ia.us/epd
Lavoy Haage
Solid Waste Section
IA Department of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
Phone: (515)281-4968
Fax: (515) 281-8895
E-mail: lhaage@max.state.ia.us
KANSAS
www.Mhe.state.ks.us/ber/
Rick Bean
Division of Environment
Bureau of Environmental Remediation
KS Department of Health and
Environment
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620-0001
Phone: (913)296-1675
Fax: (913)296-1686
www.kyeqc.net/
Jeffrey Pratt
Division of Waste Management
KY Department of Environmental
Protection
14ReillyRoad
Frankfurt, KY 40601
Phone: (502)564-6716
Fax: (502)564-4049
E-mail: jeff.pratt@mail.state.ky.us
LOUISIANA
www.decj.state.la.us/
Roger Gingles
Department of Environmental Quality
Inactive and Abandoned Sites
Division
P.O. Box 82178
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2178
Phone: (225)765-0333
Fax: (225) 765-0617
E-mail: roger_g@deq.state.la.us
MAINE
www.state.me.us/dep/rwm/home.htm
Nicholas Hodgkins
Bureau of Hazardous Materials & Solid
Waste Control
ME Department of Environmental
Protection
State House Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333-0017
Phone: (207)287-2651
Fax: (207)287-7826
E-mail: nick.hodgkins@state.me.us
MARYLAND
www.mde.state.md.us/
Jim Metz
MD Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Phone: (410)631-3437
Fax: (410)631-3472
E-mail: bdemarco@charm.net
MASSACHUSETTS
www.state.ma.us/dep/bwsc/bwschome.htm
Todd Fernandez
Department of Economic
Development
Boston, MA
Phone: (617)727-3206
www.deq.state.mi.us/
James Linton
Site Reclamation Unit
MI Department of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 30426
Lansing, MI 48909
Phone: (517)373-8450
Fax: (517) 373-9657
E-mail: lintonj@state.mi.us
MINNESOTA
www.pca.state.mn.us/deanup/index.html
Barbara Jackson
VIC/VPIC Program
MN Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone: (651)296-7212
Fax: (651) 296-9707
E-mail: barb.jackson@pca.state.mn.us
Meredith Udoibok
Department of Trade and Economic
Development
St. Paul, MN
Phone: (651)297-4132
MISSISSIPPI
www.deq.state.ms.us/
Russell Smith
Pollution Control and Hazardous
Waste Division
Office of Pollution Control
MS Department of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
Phone: (601)961-5171
Fax: (601) 961-5741
E-mail: russellsmith@deq.ms.us
MISSOURI
www.dnr.state.mo.us/decj/homedeci.htm
Jim Belcher
Voluntary Cleanup Section
MO Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: (573)526-8913
Fax: (573) 526-8922
MONTANA
www.deq.state.mt.us/index.asp
Carol Fox
Site Remediation Division
MT Department of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 200901
Helena, MT 59620-0901
Phone: (406)444-0478
Fax: (406) 444-1901
E-mail: cfox@mt.gov
• APPENDIX C: LIST OF BROWNFIELDS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT CONTACTS
C-3
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
STATE BROWNFIELDS CONTACTS (continued)
NEBRASKA
NEW MEXICO
OKLAHOMA
www.deq.state.ne.us/
JeffKelley
NE Department of Environmental
Quality
The Atrium Building, Suite 400
Lincoln, NE 68508-8922
Phone: (402)471-3387
Fax: (402)471-2909
E-mail: deq216@mail.deq.state.ne.us
NEVADA
www.state.nv.us/
Robert Kelso
Division of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Corrective Actions
333 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89706
Phone: (702)687-5872
Fax: (702) 687-6396
E-mail: us.ndepl@govmail.state.nv.us
NEW HAMPSHIRE
www.des.state.nh.us/orcbjiwrb.htm
Gary Lynn
Waste Management Division
NH Department of Environmental
Services
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03304
Phone: (603)271-6778
Fax: (603) 271-2456
NEW JERSEY
www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/index.htm
Mr. Gary Greulich
NJDEP- Bureau of Field Operations
Northern Field Office
2 Babcock Place
West Orange, NJ 07052
(973) 669-3960
Mr. George Nicholas
NJDEP - Bureau of Ground Water
Pollution Abatement
P.O. Box 413
Trenton, NJ 08625-0413
(609) 984-6565
Mark Pederson
Case Assignment Section
NJ Department of Environmental
Protection
401 E. State Street
P.O. Box 434
Trenton, NJ 08625-0434
Phone: (609)292-1250
Fax: (609)292-2117
www.nmenv.state.nm.us/
Chris Bynum
Environment Department
Superfund Oversight Section
P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fe,NM 87502
Phone: (505)827-2754
Fax: (505)827-2965
E-mail: chris_bynum@nmenv.state.
nm.us
NEW YORK
www.dec.state. ny. us/
Christine Costopoulos
Division of Remedial Response
NY Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-7010
Phone: (518)457-5861
Fax: (518)457-9639
E-mail: cjcostop@gw.dec.state.ny.us
NORTH CAROLINA
http://wastenot.ehnr.state.nc.us/
Bruce Nicholson
Special Remediation Branch,
Superfund Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
Phone: (919) 733-2801 ext. 353
E-mail: bruce.nicholson@ncmail.us
NORTH DAKOTA
www.ehs.health.state.nd.us/ndhd/environ/
wm/index.htm
Kurt Erickson
Division of Waste Management
ND Department of Health and
Consolidated Labs
P.O. Box 5520
Bismark, ND 58506-5520
Phone: (701)328-5166
Fax: (701)328-5200
E-mail: ccmail.cerickso@ranch.
state.nd.us
OHIO
www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/
Amy Yersavich
Voluntary Action Program
OH Environmental Protection Agency
122 South Front Street
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43216-1049
Phone: (614)644-2285
Fax: (614)728-1791
E-mail: amy.yersavich@epa.state.oh.us
www.deq.state.ok.us/waste.html
Rita Kottke
Waste Management Division
OK Department of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 1677
707 N. Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677
Phone: (405)702-5127
Fax: (405) 702-5101
E-mail: rita.kottke@deqmail.state.
ok.us
Anil Lyon
Department of Environmental Quality
Waste Management Division
1000 Northeast 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
Phone: (405)271-7128
Fax: (405) 271-1342
E-mail: anil.lyon@oklaosf.state.ok.us
OREGON
www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/cleanup/
clean.htm
AlanKiphut
Voluntary Cleanup Section
Waste Management and Cleanup
Division
OR Department of Environmental
Quality
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: (503)229-6834
Fax: (503) 229-6977
E-mail: kiphut.alan@deq.state.or.us
PENNSYLVANIA
www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/
airwaste/wm/default.htm
Scott Dunkelberger
Grants Office
Department of Community and
Economic Development
494 Forum Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Phone: (717) 787-7120
Fax: (717) 787-2890
E-mail: sdunkel@doc.state.pa.us
David Hess
Department of Environmental
Protection
Philadelphia, PA
Phone: (717) 783-7509
E-mail: hess.david@al.dep.state.pa.us
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
STATE BROWNFIELDS CONTACTS (continued)
PENNSYLVANIA (continued)
James Shaw
Department of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Land Recycling & Waste
Management
400 Market Street
P.O. Box 8471
Harrisburg, PA 17105
Phone: (717) 787-7120
Fax: (717) 787-1904
E-mail: landrecyclng@al.dep.state.pa.us
RHODE ISLAND
www.state.ri.us/dem
Greg Fine
Office of Waste Management
RI Department of Environmental
Management
235 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908
Phone: (401)277-2797
Fax: (401) 277-3812
SOUTH CAROLINA
www.state.sc.us/dhec
Gail Jeter
Bureau of Land and Waste
Management
SC Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Phone: (803)896-4069
Fax: (803) 896-4001
E-mail: jetergr@columb34.dhec.
state.sc.us
SOUTH DAKOTA
www. state, sd. us /state'/executiveidem/
denr.html
Mark Lawrenson
Division of Environmental Regulation
SD Department of Water and Natural
Resources
523 East Capitol, Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501
Phone: (605)773-5868
Fax: (605) 773-6035
TENNESSEE
www.state.tn.us/environment/dsf/
home.htm
Andrew Shivas
Division of Superfund
TN Department of Environment and
Conservation
401 Church Street
14th Floor, L&C Annex
Nashville, TN 37214
Phone: (615)532-0912
Fax: (615) 532-0938
E-mail: ashivas@mail.state.tn.us
TEXAS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/homepgs/oprr.html
Chuck Epperson
Voluntary Cleanup Section
TX Natural Resource Conservation
Commission
P.O. Box 13087-MC221
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Phone: (512)239-2498
Fax: (512)239-1212
E-mail: cepperso@tnrcc.state.tx.us
UTAH
www.ecj.state.ut.us/EQERR/errhmpg.htm
Brent Everett
Division of Environmental Response
and Remediation
168 North 1950 West
1st Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Phone: (801)536-4100
Fax: (801)536-4242
E-mail: beverett@deq.state.ut.us
VERMONT
www.anr.state.vt.us/
George Desch
Department of Environmental
Conservation
VT Agency of Natural Resources
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671-0404
Phone: (802)241-3491
Fax: (802)244-3296
E-mail: georged@dec.anr.state.vt.us
VIRGINIA
www.deq.state.va.us/
Erica Dameron
VA Department of Environmental
Quality
629 E. Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804)698-4201
Fax: (804)698-4334
E-mail: esdameron@deq.state.va.us
WASHINGTON
www.ecy.wa.gov
Curtis Dahlgren
WA Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Phone: (360)407-7187
Fax: (360)407-7154
E-mail: cdah461@ecy.wa.gov
Angelo Tompros
Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs
Environmental Regulation
Administration
2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave., SE
Room 203
Washington, DC 20020
Phone: (202)645-6080
Fax: (202) 645-6622
WEST VIRGINIA
www. dep. state, wv. us/
Ken Ellison
Office of Waste Management
WV Division of Environmental
Protection
1356 Hansford Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: (304)558-5929
Fax: (304) 558-0256
E-mail: kellison@mail.dep.state.wv.us
WISCONSIN
www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/rr
Darsi Foss
Division of Environmental Quality
WI Department of Natural Resources
101 South Webster Street
Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Phone: (608)267-6713
Fax: (608) 267-7646
E-mail: fossd@dnr.state.wi.us
WYOMING
http://decj.state.wy.us/
Carl Anderson
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
WY Department of Environmental
Quality
122 West, 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Phone: (307) 777-7752
Fax: (307) 777-5973
E-mail: cander@missc.state.wy.us
• APPENDIX C: LIST OF BROWNFIELDS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT CONTACTS
C-5
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
EPA Regional
Brownfields
Coordinators
REGION 1
REGION 4
REGION 8
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Vermont
www.epa.gov/region01/brownfields/
Lynne Jennings
U.S. EPA
Region 1
MCHIO
One Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114-2023
Phone: (617)918-1210
Fax: (617) 918-1291
E-mail: jennings.lynne@epa.gov
REGION 2
New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands
www.epa.gov/r02earth/superfnd/
brownfld/bfmainpg.htm
Larry D'Andrea
U.S. EPA
Region 2
290 Broadway
18th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Phone: (212)637-4314
Fax: (212) 637-4360
E-mail: dandrea@epa.gov
REGION 3
Delaware, Washington, D.C.,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
West Virginia
www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/brownfld/
hmpagel.htm
Tom Stolle
U.S. EPA
Region 3
MC 3HS 34
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215)814-3129
Fax: (215) 814-3254
E-mail: stolle.tom@epa.gov
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee
www.epa.gov/region4/index.html
Mickey Hartnett
U.S. EPA
Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404)562-8661
Fax: (404) 562-8628
E-mail: hartnett.mickey@epa.gov
REGION 5
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Ohio, Wisconsin
www.epa.gov/R5Brownfields/
Joe Dufficy
U.S. EPA
Region 5
MC HFE-5J
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Phone: (312)886-1960
Fax: (312) 886-7910
E-mail: dufficy.joe@epa.gov
REGION 6
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
www.epa.gov/earthl r6/6sf/bfpages/
sfbfhome.htm
Stan Hitt
U.S. EPA
Region 6
MC 6SF-P
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: (214)665-6736
Fax: (214) 665-6660
E-mail: hitt.stan@epa.gov
REGION 7
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
www.epa.gov/region07/brownfields/
index.html
Susan Klein
U.S. EPA
Region 7
SUPR
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: (913)551-7786
Fax: (913) 551-7948
E-mail: klein.susan@epa.gov
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
www.epa.gov/region08/land_waste/
bfhome/bfhome.html
Kathie Atencio
U.S. EPA
Region 8
MC8EPR-SA
999 18th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Phone: (303)312-6803
Fax: (303) 312-6071
E-mail: atencio.kathie@epa.gov
REGION 9
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada,
American Samoa, Guam
www.epa.gov/region09/waste/brown/
index.html
Jim Hanson
U.S. EPA
Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415)744-2237
Fax: (415) 744-1796
E-mail: hanson.jim@epa.gov
REGION 10
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/
index.html#other
Tim Brincefield
U.S. EPA
Region 10
MC ECL-122
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206)553-2100
Fax: (206) 553-0124
E-mail: brincefield.timothy@epa.gov
EPA HEADQUARTERS
www.epa.gov/brownfields
Anthony Raia
Outreach and Special Projects Staff
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
U.S. EPA
MC: 5105
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202)260-6837
Fax: (202) 260-6066
E-mail: raia.anthony@epa.gov
C-6
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
EPA Technical
Support Contacts
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT CENTER
Online: http://du-in.org/brownfieldstsc
Phone: (877) 838-7220 (Toll Free)
EPA Contact: Dan Powell
Technology Innovation Office
U.S. EPA
Phone: (703)603-7196
E-mail: powell.dan@epa.gov
GENERAL INFORMATION:
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION OFFICE
CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES
John Kingscott
Technology Innovation Office
U.S. EPA
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (5102G)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (703) 603-7189
Fax: (703) 603-9135
E-mail: kingscott.john@epa.gov
GROUNDWATER INFORMATION
Richard Steimle
Technology Innovation Office
U.S. EPA
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (5102G)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (703) 603-7195
Fax: (703) 603-9135
E-mail: steimle.richard@epa.gov
REGULATORY INFORMATION
See page C-6 for information about EPA regional
points of contact.
SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND MONITORING
Deana Crumbling
Technology Innovation Office
U.S. EPA
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (5102G)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (703) 603-0643
Fax: (703) 603-9135
E-mail: crumbling.deana@epa.gov
SPECIFIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT:
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES
Ed Earth
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. EPA
26 Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: (513)569-7669
Fax: (513) 569-7676
E-mail: barth.ed@epa.gov
Joan Colson
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. EPA
26 Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: (513) 569-7501
Fax: (513) 569-7676
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
David Burden
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center
Office of Research and Development
U.S. EPA
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74821-1198
Phone: (580)436-8606
E-mail: burden.david@epa.gov
SITE CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES
Ken Brown
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. EPA
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
Phone: (702)798-2270
Fax: (702) 798-2261
E-mail: brown.ken@epa.gov
Eric Koglin
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. EPA
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
Phone: (702)798-2432
Fax: (702) 798-2261
E-mail: koglin.eric@epa.gov
• APPENDIX C: LIST OF BROWNFIELDS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT CONTACTS
C-7
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Appendix D
HOW TO ORDER DOCUMENTS
Each resource described in this document can either be viewed or downloaded directly from the
accompanying CD-ROM, or accessed or ordered on line using links provided on the CD-ROM. Many of the
documents are provided in portable document format (pdf). Printed or hard copy versions of the
publications are available through EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP).
NSCEP is a central repository for all EPA documents, with more than 7,000 titles in paper and electronic
format. The documents are available free of charge, but supplies may be limited. You may order one copy
each of as many as five documents within any two-week period. Documents may be ordered on line, by
telephone, by facsimile, or by using the order form provided on the following page. Please include the EPA
document numbers of all publications ordered.
Some EPA publications also may be available on EPA's National Environmental Publications Internet Site
(NEPIS), EPA's online repository of more than 7,000 documents. Visit the NEPIS site at www.epa.gov/ncepihom/
nepishom to search for, view, and print documents. The collection may include documents that no longer are
available in print. In addition, since some EPA offices make selected documents available through their own
Web sites, you may wish to visit the Web site, "Publications on the EPA Site" at www.epa.gov/epahome/
publications!.htm for more information about obtaining documents.
Publications that have numbers beginning with PB, or publications that are out of stock at NSCEP, may be
purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).
Publications of the WASTECH partnerships may be ordered by using the order form provided at the end of
this appendix.
The addresses, telephone and facsimile numbers, and web addresses for the services are listed below:
NSCEP National Service Center for Environmental Publications
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (800) 490-9198
Telephone: (513) 489-8190 (Government Employees)
Fax: (513) 489-8695
WWW: www.epa.gov/ncepihom
NTIS National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: (703) 605-6000
Fax: (703) 605-6900
E-mail: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov
WWW: www.ntis.gov
' APPENDIX D: HOW TO ORDER DOCUMENTS D-1
-------
-------
NATIONAL SERVICE CENTER
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLICATIONS
ORDERFORM
EPA publications may be available through the National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP). Single copies are available free of charge while supplies last.
Mail to: National Service Center for Environmental Publications
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
(800)490-9198
(513) 489-8190 (Government Employees)
Fax to: (513)489-8695
Document No. Document Title
Customer Information
Name
Company
Street Address
City State Zip Code
Daytime Telephone Number
-------
FOLD HERE
Return Address:
National Service Center for Environmental Publications
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
FOLD HERE
-------
WASTECH® INNOVATIVE SITE REMEDIATION
TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING MONOGRAPHS
ORDER FORM
INNOVATIVE SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY:
PHASE I (PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS)
Please send me the following books in the WASTECH8 PHASE I SERIES ON INNOVATIVE SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY: PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS
AND LIMITATIONS. (All books are hardcover and range in length from 130 to 288 pages). Prepayment required by check or charge to Visa or Mastercard.
Satisfaction guaranteed, any books returned within 30 days in salable condition will receive a full refund. Save by ordering complete series for $495.00!
Check the volume(s) you wish to order, total your purchase amount, and enter in the below form.
Q VoM Bioremediation $69.95 code* 00-311-00
Q Vol2 Chemical Treatment $69.95 code* 00-312-00
Q Vol3 Soil Washing/Soil Flushing $69.95 code* 00-313-00
Q Vol4 Stabilization/Solidification $69.95 code* 00-314-00
Q VolS Solvent/Chemical Extraction $69.95 code* 00-315-00
Q Vol6 ThermalDesorption $69.95 code#00-316-00
Q Vol7 Thermal Destruction $69.95 code* 00-317-00
Q VolS Vacuum Vapor Extraction $69.95 code* 00-318-00
Q Entire Phase I Series $495.00 code#00-300-00
Name
Company/Institution
Address
City/State/Zip
Daytime Phone (
Order Total
Shipping & Handling*
Total
Method of Payment (Please Check One):
Check VISA
Credit Card*
Mastercard
ExpDate_
Signature
•Add $4.75 ($6.75 Canada) for the first book, plus $2.00 ($3.50 Canada)
each additional book [$18.75 ($31.25 Canada) for the entire series].
Outside the US and Canada — $20.00 + 10% of order amount (surface),
$40.00 + 20% of order amount (air).
Mail/Fax to: American Academy of Environmental Engineers
130 Holiday Court, Suite 100, Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone: 410-266-3311, Fax: 410-266-7653
INNOVATIVE SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY:
PHASE II (DESIGN AND APPLICATION)
Please send me the following books in the WASTECH® PHASE II SERIES ON INNOVATIVE SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY: DESIGN AND
APPLICATION. (All books are hardcover and range in length from 230 to 420 pages). Prepayment required by check or charge to Visa or Mastercard.
Satisfaction guaranteed, any books returned within 30 days in salable condition will receive a full refund. Save by ordering complete series for $495.00!
(Each monograph will be shipped when published and credit card will be charged 1/7 of series price.) Check the volume(s) you wish to order, total your
purchase amount, and enter in the below form.
Q VoM Bioremediation $89.95 code* 00-321-10
Q Vol2 Chemical Treatment $79.95 code* 00-322-10
Q VolS Liquid Extraction Technologies $79.95 code* 00-323-10
Q Vol4 Stabilization/Solidification $79.95 code* 00-324-10
Q VolS Thermal Desorption $69.95 code* 00-325-10
Q Vol6 Thermal Destruction $69.95 code* 00-326-10
Q Vol7 Vapor Extraction & Air Sparging $89.95 code* 00-327-10
Q Entire Phase II Series $495.00 code#00-320-10
Name
Company/Institution
Address
City/State/Zip
Daytime Phone (
Order Total
Shipping & Handling*
Total
Method of Payment (Please Check One):
Check VISA
Credit Card*
Mastercard
ExpDate_
Signature
•Add $4.75 ($6.75 Canada) for the first book, plus $2.00 ($3.50 Canada)
each additional book [$16.75 ($27.75 Canada) for the entire series].
Outside the US and Canada — $20.00 + 10% of order amount (surface),
$40.00 + 20% of order amount (air).
Mail/Fax to: American Academy of Environmental Engineers
130 Holiday Court, Suite 100, Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone: 410-266-3311, Fax: 410-266-7653
-------
FOLD HERE
Return Address:
American Academy of Environmental Engineers
130 Holiday Court, Suite 100
Annapolis, MD 21401
FOLD HERE
-------
INDEX OF RESOURCES
-------
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Index
No. Title of Resource Page
1 Anaerobic Biodegradation of BTEX in Aquifer Material; Environmental Research Brief
(EPA600-S-97-003) 52
2 Analysis of Selected Enhancements for Soil Vapor Extraction (EPA 542-R-97-007) 53
3 Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 1998 Update 11
4 Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 34
5 Assessing Contractor Capabilities for Streamlined Site Investigations (EPA 542-R-00-001) 20
6 Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program: Guidance for In Situ
Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments (EPA 905-B-96-004) 53
7 Assessment of Phytoremediation as an In-Situ Technique for Cleaning Oil-Contaminated Sites 49
8 ASTM Standard Guide for Accelerated Site Characterization for Confirmed or Suspected
Petroleum Releases (E1912-98) 29
9 ASTM Standard Guide for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Process (E1903-97) 29
10 ASTM Standard Guide for Process of Sustainable Brownfields Development (E1984-98) 20
11 ASTM Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites
(E1739-95el) 43
12 ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment Process (E1527-00) 20
13 Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Soil Treatment Technologies: Suggested Operational Guidelines
to Prevent Cross-Media Transfer of Contaminants During Clean-Up Activities (EPA 530-R-97-007) 64
14 Bioremediation and Phytoremediation of Pesticide-Contaminated Sites, The 49
15 Bioremediation in the Field Search System (BFSS) Version 2.1 53
16 Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvent Contaminated Groundwater 53
17 Breaking Barriers to the Use of Innovative Technologies: State Regulatory Role in Unexploded
Ordnance Detection and Characterization Technology Selection 11,43
18 Brownfields Technology Primer: Requesting and Evaluating Proposals That Encourage Innovative
Technologies for Investigation and Cleanup (EPA 542-R-01-005) 29,43
19 Brownfields Technology Primer: Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site Cleanup
(EPA542-R-01-006) 53
20 Brownfields Technology Support Center 11
21 Brownfields: A Comprehensive Guide to Redeveloping Contaminated Property 11
2 2 California Environmental Technology Certification Program - California Certified Technologies List 35,53
23 Catalog of EPA Materials on USTs (EPA 510-B-00-001) 49
24 Characterization of Mine Leachates and the Development of a Ground-Water Monitoring Strategy
for Mine Sites (EPA 600-R-99-007) 34,65
25 Citizen's Guides to Understanding Innovative Treatment Technologies 43, 65
26 Clean-Up Information Home Page on the World Wide Web 20,44
27 CLU-INStudio 11
28 CLU-IN Technology Focus 53
29 Contaminants and Remedial Options at Pesticide Sites (EPA 600-R-94-202, PB95-183869) 34
3 0 Contaminants and Remedial Options at Selected Metal-Contaminated Sites (EPA 540-R-95-512,
PB95-271961) 34
31 Cost Analyses for Selected Groundwater Cleanup Projects: Pump-and-Treat Systems and
Permeable Reactive Barriers (EPA542-R-00-013) 54
32 Cost Estimating Tools and Resources for Addressing the Brownfields Initiatives (EPA 625-R-99-001) ....29,44
33 Data Quality Objective Process for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations (EPA 600-R-00-007) 6,20,30
• INDEX OF RESOURCES |-1
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Index
No. Title of Resource Page
34 Data Quality Objectives Web Site 21
35 Directory of Technology Support Services to Brownf ields Localities (EPA 542-B-99-005) 44, 65
36 Engineered Approaches to In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents: Fundamentals and
Field Applications (EPA 542-R-00-008) 54
37 Engineering and Design: Adsorption Design Guide (DG1110-1-2) 54
3 8 Engineering and Design: Requirements for the Preparation of Sampling and Analysis Plans
(EM 200-1-3) 21,30
39 Environmental Technology Verification Reports 36
40 EPA Brownf ields Economic Redevelopment Initiative Internet Site 12
41 EPA Directive: Initiatives to Promote Innovative Technology in Waste Management Programs
(OSWER Directive 9380.0-25, EPA 542-F-96-012) 65
42 EPA Dynamic Field Activities Internet Site 36
43 EPA Off ice of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Industry Sector Notebooks 22
44 EPA Office of Solid Waste SW-846 On-line: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/
Chemical Methods 30
45 EPA ORD Brownf ields Guides 34,49
46 EPA Region 3 Industry Profile Fact Sheets 22
47 EPA Region5 Monitored Natural Attenuation Report 54
48 EPA REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative Technologies (REACH IT) Online
Searchable Database 21,30,44,65
49 EPA's Off ice of Underground Storage Tanks Internet Site 55
50 Evaluation of Selected Environmental Decision Support Software (DSS) 30,44
51 Evaluation of Subsurface Engineered Barriers at Waste Sites (EPA 542-R-98-005) 44
52 Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regulators
(EPA510-B-97-001) 35
53 Expedited Site Characterization (ESC) Method (Ames Laboratory Environmental Technologies
DevelopmentProgram) 21
54 Federal Facilities Forum Issue: Field Sampling and Selecting On-Site Analytical Methods for
Explosives in Soil (EPA 540-R-97-501) 36
55 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) Case Studies 44, 65
56 Field Analytic Technologies Encyclopedia (FATE) 31
57 Field Applications of In Situ Remediation Technologies: Chemical Oxidation (EPA 542-R-98-008) 54
58 Field Applications of In Situ Remediation Technologies: Ground-Water Circulation Wells
(EPA542-R-98-009) 54
59 Field Applications of In Situ Remediation Technologies: Permeable Reactive Barriers
(EPA542-R-99-002) 57
60 Field Sampling and Analysis Technologies Matrix, Version 1.0 31
61 Field Validation of a Penetrometer-Based Fiber Optic Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant (POL) Sensor:
ProjectSummary(EPA600-SR-97-055) 36
62 Frequently Asked Questions about Drycleaning (EPA 744-K-98-002) 23
63 Geophysical Techniques to Locate DNAPLs: Profiles of Federally Funded Projects (EPA 542-R-98-020) 57
64 Groundwater Cleanup: Overview of Operating Experience at 28 Sites (EPA542-R-99-006) 50
65 Groundwater Issue Paper: Steam Injection for Soil and Aquifer Remediation (EPA 540-S-97-505) 57
66 Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC) Technology Reports 57
6 7 Guidance for Preparing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) (EPA 240-B-01-004) 12
1-2
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Index
No. Title of Resource Page
68 Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for Remediation Projects
(EPA542-B-98-007) 45
69 Guideline for Dynamic Workplans and Field Analytics: The Keys to Cost-Effective Site
Characterization and Cleanup 31
70 Handbook of Tools for Managing Federal Superfund Liability Risks at Brownf ields and Other Sites
(EPA330-B-98-001) 12
71 Hazardous Substance Research Centers 12
72 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste Center of Expertise 13
73 How To Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for Underground Storage Tank Sites:
A Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers (EPA 510-B-94-003,S/N 055-000-00499-4) 50
74 Hydraulic Optimization Demonstration for Groundwater Pump-and-Treat Systems 57
75 Hydrogeologic Characterization of Fractured Rock Formations: A Guide for Groundwater
Remediators; Project Summary (EPA 600-S-96-001) 36
76 IDCHomePage 50
7 7 Improving Sampling, Analysis, and Data Management for Site Investigation and Cleanup
(EPA542-F-01-030A) 21
78 Improving the Cost-Effectiveness of Hazardous Waste Site Characterization and Monitoring 31, 67
79 In Situ Electrokinetic Remediation of Metal Contaminated Soils Technology Status Report
(SFIM-AEC-ET-CR-99022) 57
80 In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments 58
81 Innovations in Site Characterization Case Study Series 31
82 Innovative Measures for Subsurface Chromium Remediation: Source Zone, Concentrated
Plume, and Dilute Plume; Environmental Research Brief (EPA 600-S-97-005) 50
83 Innovative Remediation and Site Characterization Technologies Resources (EPA 542-C-01-001) 31,45
84 Innovative Remediation Technologies: Field-Scale Demonstration Projects in North America,
2nd Edition (EPA 542-B-00-004) 45
85 Institutional Controls: A Site Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating, and Selecting Institutional
Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups (EPA 540-F-00-005) 67
86 Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation 13
87 Introduction to Phytoremediation (EPA 600-R-99-107) 58
88 ITRC Phytoremediation Decision Tree 58
89 Leak Detection for Landfill Liners: Overview of Tools for Vadose Zone Monitoring (EPA 542-R-98-019).... 58
90 Monitored Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents (EPA 600-F-98-022) 58
91 Monitored Natural Attenuation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPA 600-F-98-021) 58
92 MTBE Fact Sheet #2: Remediation of MTBE-Contaminated Soil and Groundwater (EPA 510-F-98-002) 50
93 MTBE Treatment Case Studies and Web Site 58
94 Multi-Phase Extraction: State of the Practice (EPA 542-R-99-004) 58
95 NATO/CCMS Pilot Study Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Technologies for the Treatment
of Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) 2000 Annual Report (EPA 542-R-01-001) 51
9 6 Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater: Principles and Practices 59
97 Natural Attenuation of MTBE in the Subsurface under Methanogenic Conditions (EPA 600-R-00-006) 59
98 OnSiteOnLine Tools for Site Assessment 21
99 Ordnance and Explosives Mandatory Center of Expertise (MCX) and Design Center 23
100 Overview of the Phytoremediation of Lead and Mercury 59
• INDEX OF RESOURCES |-3
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Index
No. Title of Resource Page
101 Pay-For-Performance Cleanups: Effectively Managing Underground Storage Tank Cleanups
(EPA510-B-96-002) 51
102 Permeable Reactive Barrier Technologies for Contaminant Remediation (EPA 600-R-98-125) 59
103 Permeable Reactive Barriers for Inorganics 59
104 Permeable Reactive Subsurface Barriers for the Interception and Remediation of Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon and Chromium (VI) Plumes in Ground Water (EP A 600-F-97-008) 59
105 Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater at Hazardous Waste Sites
(EPA540-S-01-500) 59
106 Phytoremediation of TCE in Groundwater Using Populus 60
107 Phytoremediation Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-99-003) 60
108 Phytotechnology Technical and Regulatory Guidance (Phyto-2) 60
109 Presumptive Remedy: Supplemental Bulletin, Multi-Phase Extraction Technology for VOCs in
Soil and Groundwater (EPA 540-F-97-004) 60
110 Presumptive Response Strategy and Ex-Situ Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Ground
Water at CERCLA Sites (EPA 540-R-96-023) 51
111 Pub lie Techno logy Inc.'s BrownfieldsTech.org 32,45
112 Pump and Treat Ground-Water Remediation: A Guide for Decision Makers and Practitioners
(EPA625-R-95-005) 60
113 Quality Assurance Guidance for Conducting Brownfields Site Assessments (EPA 540-R-98-038) 22
114 Rapid Commercialization Initiative (RCI) Final Report for an Integrated In Situ Remediation
Technology (Lasagna™) (DOE/OR/22459-1) 45
115 Rapid Site Assessment Applied to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's
Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program 51
116 RCRAOnline 13
117 RCRA, Superf und, and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Hotline 13
118 Recent Developments for In Situ Treatment of Metal-Contaminated Soils (EPA542-R-97-004) 51
119 Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 3.0 (PB98-108590) 45
120 Resource for MGP Site Characterization and Remediation: Expedited Site Characterization and
Source Remediation at Former Manufactured Gas Plant Sites (EPA 542-R-00-005) 35,51
121 Resources for Strategic Site Investigation and Monitoring (EPA 542-F-01-030B) 32
122 Reuse Assessments: A Tool to Implement the Superf und Land Use Directive
(OSWER Directive 9355.7-06P) 48
123 Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste
Containment Areas (EPA 540-K-01-002) 67
124 Risk-Management Strategy f or PCB-Contaminated Sediments 35
125 Sensor Technology Information Exchange (SenTIX) 22, 32
126 Site Characterization and Monitoring Technologies: Bibliography of EPA Information Resources
(EPA542-B-98-003) 32
127 Site Characterization Library, Volume 1, Release 2.0 (EPA 600-C-98-001) 32
128 Site Remediation Technology Info Base: A Guide to Federal Programs, Information Resources, and
Publications on Contaminated Site Cleanup Technologies, Second Edition (EPA 542-B-00-005) 48
129 Solidification/Stabilization Use at Superfund Sites (EPA 542-R-00-010) 60
130 State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners (SCRD) Internet Site 46,52
131 State Policy and Regulatory Barriers to In Situ Ground Water Remediation (EPA 542-R-96-001) 67
132 State Programs to Clean Up Drycleaners 52
1-4
-------
ROAD MAP TO UNDERSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR BROWNFIELDS INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Index
No. Title of Resource Page
133 Study of Assessment and Remediation Technologies for Drycleaner Sites 23, 60
134 Subsurface Containment and Monitoring Systems: Barriers and Beyond (Overview Report) 60
135 Subsurface Remediation: Improving Long-Term Monitoring and Remedial Systems Performance
Conference Proceedings, June 1999 (EPA 540-B-00-002) 61
136 Superfund Docket and Information Center 13
137 Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program Demonstration Reports 33
138 Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program: Technology Profiles, Tenth Edition 48
139 Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies, Third Edition
(EPA542-B-93-009,PB94-144565) 48
140 Tank RACER Software Program 48
141 Tax Credits and Deductions for Expensing Environmental Remediation Costs (Internal Revenue
Code Section 198) 13
142 TechDirect 14
143 TechKnow™ Database 48
144 Technical and Regulatory Requirements for Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated
Solvents in Groundwater 61
145 Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Ground Water
(EPA600-R-98-128) 67
146 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Assistance Information Service 14
147 Training Information 14
148 Treatment Experiences at RCRA Corrective Actions (EPA542-F-00-020) 52
149 Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (ASR) (Tenth Edition)
(EPA542-R-01-004) 49
150 Treatment Technology Performance and Cost Data for Remediation of Wood Preserving Sites
(EPA625-R-97-005) 52
151 Tri-Service Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System—SCAPS: Innovative
Environmental Technology from Concept to Commercialization 37
152 U.S. DepartmentofEnergy(DOE) Preferred Alternatives Matrices (PAMs) 33,49
153 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Vendor Database for Environmental Application 34
154 Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 61
155 Underground Storage Tanks and Brownfields Sites (EPA 510-F-00-004) 23
156 Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground
Storage Tank Sites 52
157 A User's Guide to Environmental Immunochemical Analysis 35
158 WASTECH® Series of Innovative Site Remediation Technology Engineering Monographs 67
• INDEX OF RESOURCES |-5
-------
1. Insert CD Into CD-ROM drive
2. Click "Start"
3. Click "Run"
4. Type HD:\sterLhtmn end click "OK"
(If your CD-ROM drive Is not your "D" drive,
type the letter ofyourdriveinstead
of the letter D.)
To View the Road Map CD-ROM:
To view the resources on the Road Map CD-ROM, you will need
to have both a web browser and Adobe® Acrobat® Reader 4.0
installed on your computer. For your convenience, both can be
installed from this CD.
Note: In the instructions, the CD-ROM drive is referred to as the
"D" drive. If your CD-ROM is installed on a different drive,
please substitute the appropriate drive letter.
Getting Started
To view the Road Map CD-ROM, insert the CD into your CD-
ROM drive. Click on the "Start" button, select "Run," and type
D:\start.htm.
Software Installation
To install Netscape, go to Start, Run, and type
D:\software\netscape.exe and follow the on-screen directions.
To install Adobe® Acrobat® Reader 4.0, go to Start, Run, and type
D:\software\acrobat4.exe and follow the on-screen directions.
-------
-------
m
o
o
"DQ
CD ~h
Q) O
oo -
2 5
"05"
i-CD
|w
CD
CO
CD
Pi
O CD W
b
I
a
o
m
CQ
CD
-------
. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I WASHINGTON, B.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
September 29, 2000
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Final Fact Sheet Entitled 'Institutional Controls: A Site Manager's Guide to Identifying.
Evaluating and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups"
FROM: Timothy Fields, Jr., Assistant Administrator s/ Timothy Fields, Jr.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
TO: Regional Waste Policy Managers
RCRA Senior Policy Advisors
Regions 1-10
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit the final fact sheet entitled 'Institutional Controls: A Site
Manager's Guide to Identifying. Evaluating and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective
Action Cleanups" EPA 540-F-00-005, OSWER 9355.0-74FS-P, dated September 2000. This fact sheet is
intended to provide Superfund and RCRA site managers and other decision makers with an overview of the types of
institutional controls (ICs) that are commonly available, including their relative strengths and weaknesses, and to
provide a discussion of the key factors to consider when evaluating and selecting ICs in Superfund and RCRA
Corrective Action cleanups.
OBJECTIVE AND IMPLEMENTATION
This fact sheet was written for EPA site managers at Superfund and RCRA sites. However, many of the
concepts are directly applicable to States (especially when they implement the RCRA programs), Federal Facilities,
Tribes, local agencies and private individuals that contemplate the use of ICs. For this reason we are also making the
fact sheet publicly available by posting it on the EPA internet. I encourage you to pass on the information to other
interested parties.
Some of the key messages from this fact sheet are: 1) if the cleanup does not result in unrestricted use and
unlimited exposure at a site, an 1C is likely appropriate, 2) understand the life-cycle strengths, weaknesses and costs
for implementation, monitoring and enforcement before choosing an 1C, 3) coordinate early with all state and local
governments that may have responsibilities for the ICs, 4) evaluate ICs as rigorously as you would any other remedial
alternative, 5) layer and/or place ICs in series to increase their reliability, 6) when writing decision documents, make
sure that the objective(s) of the 1C are clear, 7) get assurances (in writing if possible) from entities that will be
-------
responsible for implementing, monitoring, and enforcing ICs, and 8) remember that since all ICs have weaknesses, the
role of the decision maker is to select the best ICs to protect human health and the environment.
This fact sheet is the first of several cross program activities that place increased emphasis and priority on the
appropriate identification, evaluation and use of institutional controls at RCRA and Superfund sites. As a follow-up to
this fact sheet, work has begun on a second fact sheet that focuses on issues involving the implementation, monitoring
and enforcement of ICs. This fact sheet is tentatively planned for fall 2001.
In closing, thanks to all the Regions, States, Tribes and others for your comments on the fact sheet, as these
comments have significantly improved the document. If you have questions regarding this memo or the attached fact
sheet, please feel free to contact Michael Bellot at (703) 603-8905 for Superfund or Carlos M. Lago for RCRA at
703-308-8642.
cc: Mike Shapiro, OSWER 5101
Steve Luftig, OSWER 5101
OERR CD/PM
Matt Hale, OSW 5301W
WaltKovalick, TIO 5102G
Renee Wynn, FFRRO 5106
OERR Records Manager, IMC 5202G
Joanna Gibson, HOSC 5202G
Barry Breen, OSRE 2271A
-------
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
OSWER 9355.0-74FS-P
EPA 540-F-00-005
September, 2000
Institutional Controls:
A Site Manager's1 Guide to Identifying, Evaluating and
Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA
Corrective Action Cleanups
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Table of Contents
Purpose
This fact sheet provides Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action site
managers and decision-makers with an overview of the types of
Institutional Controls (ICs) that are commonly used or implemented, and
outlines the factors that should generally be considered when evaluating
and selecting ICs as part of the remedy. For more detailed information on
the different types of instruments available, site managers and attorneys
should consult the document, "Institutional Controls: A Reference Manual
(Workgroup Draft - March 1998)." EPA site managers should also work
closely with Regional attorneys and Headquarters staff in the Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), the Office of Site
Remediation Enforcement (OSRE), the Federal Facilities Restoration and
Reuse Office (FFRRO), the Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO)
and/or the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) on any site-specific issues that
may arise while evaluating, implementing, enforcing, or monitoring ICs.2
Definition and Importance of ICs
Generally, EPA begins the remedy evaluation process with the expectation
that treatment or engineering controls will be used to address principal
threat wastes and that groundwater will be returned to its beneficial use.
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) emphasizes that ICs, such as water use restrictions, are meant to
supplement engineering controls during all phases of cleanup and may be a
necessary component of the completed remedy. The NCP also cautions
against the use of ICs as the sole remedy unless active response measures
are determined to be impracticable. At the same time, ICs play an important role in site remedies. Often, ICs are a critical component of the cleanup
process and are used by the site manager to ensure both the short- and long-term protection of human health and the environment. For this reason it
is important to understand what constitutes an 1C. Specifically for EPA, ICs:
Purpose
Definition and Importance of ICs
Common Misnomers
Layering and Implementing ICs in Series
A Look at ICs in CERCLA, the NCP and RCRA .
Types of ICs 3
Legal Mechanisms for Imposing ICs Under
CERCLA and RCRA
ICs and Future Land Use
Screening ICs
Determining the State Role
Determining the Role of Local Governments . .
Evaluating ICs
ICs in CERCLA Removal Actions 8
Site Manager Responsibilities After ICs are
Selected 10
Conclusion 10
Key Concepts 10
Checklist for Implementing ICs 11
1C Matrix 12-25
Site Manager, as used in this fact sheet, refers to both CERCLA sites and RCRA facilities. In RCRA, project managers are the equivalent
to site managers in CERCLA.
This document provides guidance to EPA Regions and states involved in Superfund and RCRA corrective action cleanups. It also
provides guidance to the public and the regulated community on how EPA intends to evaluate and implement institutional controls as part of a
cleanup decision. The guidance is designed to implement national policy on these issues. The document does not, however, substitute for CERCLA,
RCRA or EPA's regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, States, or the regulated
community, and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. EPA and State decision makers retain the discretion to adopt
approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this guidance where appropriate. Any decisions regarding a particular facility will be made based
on the applicable statutes and regulations. Therefore, interested parties are free to raise questions and objections about the appropriateness of the
application of this guidance to a particular situation, and EPA will consider whether or not the recommendations or interpretations in the guidance
are appropriate in that situation. EPA may change this guidance in the future.
-------
are non-engineered instruments such as administrative and/or legal controls that minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination by
limiting land or resource use;
are generally to be used in conjunction with, rather than in lieu of, engineering measures such as waste treatment or containment;
can be used during all stages of the cleanup process to accomplish various cleanup-related objectives; and,
should be "layered" (i.e., use multiple ICs) or implemented in a series to provide overlapping assurances of protection from contamination.
These concepts are discussed in the text box below.
Some examples of ICs include easements, covenants, well drilling prohibitions, zoning
restrictions, and special building permit requirements. Deed restriction is a phrase often used
in remedy decision documents to describe easements or other forms of ICs; however, this is
not a traditional property law term and should be avoided. Fences that restrict access to sites
are often termed ICs; however, because fences are physical barriers instead of administrative
or legal measures, EPA does not consider them to be ICs. ICs are among the tools allowable
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) [as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)],
the NCP, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). To read more about the
regulatory framework for ICs, refer to the box on page 3 entitled, "A Look at ICs in
CERCLA, the NCP and RCRA." Finally, where protectiveness depends on reducing
exposure, ICs are a response action under CERCLA or a corrective action under RCRA.
Accordingly, even in the unusual case where a CERCLA Record of Decision (ROD) only
requires the implementation of ICs, it is considered to be a "limited action," not a "no action"
ROD. Likewise, when a corrective action under RCRA includes an 1C, whether it is part of
an interim measure or occurs at the end of the cleanup as part of the final corrective measure,
the 1C is considered a part of the remedy.
Common Misnomers
"Deed restriction" is not a traditional
property law term, but rather is a generic
term used in the NCP and elsewhere as a
shorthand way to refer to types of ICs. To
avoid confusion, site managers should avoid
the term and instead be specific about the
types of ICs under consideration and their
objectives. In addition, EPA does not
consider physical barriers as ICs. Fences
that restrict access to sites are often termed
as ICs. However, fences are not considered
by EPA to be ICs .
ICs are vital elements of response alternatives because they simultaneously influence and
supplement the physical component of the remedy to be implemented. On the one hand, the right mix of ICs can help ensure the protectiveness of
the remedy; on the other, limitations in ICs may lead to reevaluation and adjustment of the remedy components, including the proposed ICs. At
some sites, remedy contingencies may protect against uncertainties in the ability of the ICs to provide the required long-term protectiveness. These
points illustrate how important it is for site managers to evaluate ICs as thoroughly as the other remedy components in the Feasibility Study (FS) or
Corrective Measures Study (CMS), when looking for the best ICs for addressing site-specific circumstances. Adding ICs on as an afterthought
without carefully thinking about their objectives, how the ICs fit into the overall remedy, and whether the ICs can be realistically implemented in a
reliable and enforceable manner, could jeopardize the effectiveness of the entire remedy.
Often ICs are more effective if they are layered or implemented in series. Layering means
using different types of ICs at the same time to enhance the protectiveness of the remedy. For
example, to restrict land use, the site manager may issue an enforcement tool [e.g., Unilateral
Administrative Order (UAO)]; obtain an easement; initiate discussions with local governments
about a potential zoning change; and enhance future awareness of the restrictions by recording
them in a deed notice and in a state registry of contaminated sites. Also, the effectiveness of a
remedy may be enhanced when ICs are used in conjunction with physical barriers, such as
fences, to limit access to contaminated areas.
ICs may also be applied in series to ensure both the short- and long-term effectiveness of the
remedy. For example, the site manager may use an enforcement tool to require the land owner
to obtain an easement from an adjacent property owner in order to conduct ground water
sampling or implement a portion of the active remedy. This easement may not be needed for
the long-term effectiveness of the remedy and is terminated when the construction is complete.
At another site, the site manager may use an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) or
permit condition to prohibit the land owner from developing the site during the investigation.
Later, the site manager may add a provision to the Consent Decree (CD) or the permit
requiring the land owner to notify EPA if the property is to be sold and to work with the local
government to implement zoning restrictions on the property.
Layering and Implementing ICs in
Series
ICs are more effective-if they are layered or
implemented in series.
Layering ICs means using different types
of ICs at the same time to enhance the
protectiveness of the remedy.
Using ICs in series is the use of ICs at
different points in the investigation and
remediation process to ensure the short-
and long-term protection of human health
and the environment.
-------
Types Of ICS implementing ICs during the cleanup process and a matrix
summarizing examples of ICs are included at the end of the fact sheet.
A Look at ICs in CERCLA, the NCP, and RCRA
CERCLA as amended by SARA, the NCP and RCRA support the use of ICs in remediation of a site:
CERCLA—Section 121(d)(2)(B)(ii)(III) refers to the use of enforceable measures (e.g., ICs) as part of the remedial alternative at sites. EPA
can enforce the implementation of ICs, but not necessarily their long term maintenance. For example, the local government with zoning
jurisdiction may agree to change the zoning of the site to prohibit residential land uses as part of the remedy, but the local government retains
the authority to change the zoning designation in the future. EPA is authorized, under CERCLA section 104(j), to acquire (by purchase, lease
or otherwise) real property interests, such as easements, needed to conduct a remedial action provided that the state in which the interest is to
be acquired is willing to accept transfer of the interest following the remedial action. Transfers of contaminated Federal property are subject
to special deed requirements under CERCLA sections 120(h)(3)(A)(iii) and 120(h)(3)(C)(ii)(I) and (II).
NCP—the NCP provides EPA's expectations for developing appropriate remedial alternatives, including ICs under CERCLA. In particular,
it states that EPA expects to use treatment to address the principal threats posed by sites; engineering controls for wastes that pose relatively
low risk or where treatment is impracticable; and a combination of the two to protect human health and the environment [40 CFR
300.430(a)(l)(iii)(A), (B), and (C)]. In appropriate situations, a combination of treatment, containment, and ICs may be necessary. The NCP
also emphasizes the use of ICs to supplement engineering controls during all phases of cleanup and as a component of the completed remedy,
but cautions against their use as the sole remedy unless active response measures are determined to be impracticable [40 CFR
300.430(a)(l)(iii)(D)]. In the case where ICs are the entire remedy, the response to comments section of the preamble to the NCP states that
special precautions must be made to ensure the controls are reliable (55 Federal Register, March 8, 1990, page 8706). Recognizing that EPA
may not have the authority to implement such controls, the NCP requires that (for fund financed sites) the state assure that the ICs
implemented as part of the remedial action are in place, reliable, and will remain in place after the initiation of operation and maintenance [40
CFR 300.510(c)(l)]. Lastly, for Superfund financed and private sites, the NCP also requires the state to hold any interest in property that is
acquired (once the site goes into O&M) to ensure the reliability of ICs [40 CFR 300.510(f)].
RCRA—RCRA requirements are imposed through legal mechanisms different from those used under CERCLA. In RCRA, authorized states
are the primary decision makers, this results in a wide variety of state-specific mechanisms being available. This fact sheet does not attempt
to list all of the state and local 1C mechanisms, but to identify key principles for the use of ICs. If the 1C is being imposed through a RCRA
permit, steps should be taken to ensure that long-term enforcement is not lost through property transfer or permit expiration. Cleanups under
RCRA are conducted in connection with the closure of regulated units and facility-wide corrective action either under a permit [RCRA
sections 3004(u) and (v)], interim status order [RCRA section 3008(h)] or imminent hazard order [RCRA section 7003] or other authorities.
It should also be noted that landfill closure requirements under 40 CFR 264.119 require deed notices that the land has been used to manage
hazardous waste, although the notice itself does not restrict future use. EPA expects to use a combination of methods (e.g., treatment,
engineering, and institutional controls) under RCRA, as appropriate, to achieve protection of human health and the environment. EPA also
expects to use ICs, such as water and land use restrictions, primarily to supplement engineering controls, as appropriate, for short- and long-
term management to prevent or limit exposure to hazardous wastes and constituents. ICs are not generally expected to be the sole remedial
action.
Governmental Controls—Governmental controls are usually
implemented and enforced by a state or local government and can
General Categories include zoning restrictions, ordinances, statutes, building permits, or
There are four categories of institutional controls: governmental other provisions mat restrict land or resource use at a site. Local
controls; proprietary controls; enforcement and permit tools with 1C governments have a variety of land use control measures available from
components; and informational devices. Each of these categories is simple use restrictions to more sophisticated measures such as
described below. In addition, a checklist that highlights steps in planned umt development zoning distncts and overlay zones.
-------
Development zoning districts allow for more flexible site planning and
overlay zones impose additional requirements to those of the
underlying zoning district. Regardless of which measures are relied on,
the land use control should be carefully evaluated to make certain that
there are no exceptions which could allow for improper use of the site
(e.g., allowing a day care center use within an industrial district). Once
implemented, local and state entities often use traditional police powers
to regulate and enforce the controls. Since this category of ICs is put in
place under local jurisdiction, they may be changed or terminated with
little notice to EPA, and EPA generally has no authority to enforce such
controls.
For active military bases, the local authority for regulating and enforcing
ICs is the Commanding Officer. Therefore, EPA and the state should
work with the installation personnel to incorporate restrictions into the
base master plans, instructions, and orders used by the Commanding
Officer to govern conduct, actions and activities on the base (in some
cases these restrictions may be imposed as permit conditions if the base
is subject to RCRA permit requirements).
Proprietary Controls—These controls, such as easements and
covenants, have their basis in real property law and are unique in that
they generally create legal property interests. In other words,
proprietary controls involve legal instruments placed in the chain of
title of the site or property. The instrument may include the
conveyance of a property interest from the owner (grantor) to a second
party (grantee) for the purpose of restricting land or resource use. An
example of this type of control is an easement that provides access
rights to a property so the Potentially Responsible Party (PRP),
facility owner/operator, or regulatory agency may inspect and monitor a
groundwater pump-and-treat system or cover system. The benefit of
these types of controls is that they can be binding on subsequent
purchasers of the property (successors in title) and transferable, which
may make them more reliable in the long-term than other types of ICs.
However, proprietary controls also have their drawbacks. Property
law can be complicated because a property owner has many individual
rights with respect to his or her property. To illustrate this point,
property rights can be thought of as a bundle of sticks, with each stick
representing a single right (e.g., the right to collect rents). The
terminology, enforceability, and effect of each of these rights is largely
dependent upon real property common law and the state where the site
is located. A property owner can convey certain rights to other entities
(either voluntarily or involuntarily through condemnation) and keep
other rights. For example, if it is determined that a long-term easement
is required to ensure remedy protectiveness, this "right" would need to
be transferred by the property owner to another entity. For the
easement to bind subsequent purchasers, some states require that the
entity be an adjacent property owner. This may complicate long-term
monitoring and enforcement since the party receiving the right (the
grantee) is often not an adjacent property owner. To eliminate this
problem, a proprietary control may be established "in gross." This
means that the holder of the control (the grantee) does not need to be
the owner of the adjacent property. However, it should be noted that
easements in gross may not be enforceable under the laws of some
states. State property laws governing easements should therefore be
researched before this type of 1C is selected in order to determine its
enforceability in that jurisdiction.
A distinction at Federal sites being transferred to the private sector is
that CERCLA sections 120(h)(3)(A)(iii) and 120(h)(3)(c)(ii) and (iii)
require that property interests be retained by the Federal government.
At active Federal sites, proprietary controls may not be an option
because a deed does not exist or the landholding Federal agency lacks
the authority to encumber the property. However, the landholding
Agency may be willing to enter a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with EPA and/or state regulators providing for specific 1C
implementation plans, periodic inspections and other activities which
it will undertake (in lieu of deed restrictions) to assure that ICs for the
active site will remain effective.
Enforcement and Permit Tools -with 1C Components—Under
sections 104 and 106(a) of CERCLA, UAOs and AOCs can be issued
or negotiated to compel the land owner (usually a PRP) to limit certain
site activities at both Federal and private sites; CDS can also be
negotiated at private sites under 122(d). Similarly, EPA can enforce
permits, conditions and/or issue orders under RCRA sections 3004(a),
3004(u) and (v), 3008(h), or 7003. These tools are frequently used by
site managers, but may also have significant shortcomings that should
be thoroughly evaluated. For example, most enforcement agreements
are only binding on the signatories, and the property restrictions are
not transferred through a property transaction. For example, if a PRP
under CERCLA signs a CD or receives a UAO and then sells his or her
property, many types of ICs would not be enforceable against the
next owner. This could jeopardize the protectiveness of the remedy.
One possible solution to this problem is to ensure that the
enforcement tool contains provisions requiring EPA or state
notification and/or approval prior to a property transfer. In this
instance, EPA could negotiate an agreement with the new owner.
Another solution is to require signatories of an enforcement document
to implement additional long-term institutional controls such as
information devices or proprietary controls (i.e., layering).
Informational Devices—Informational tools provide information or
notification that residual or capped contamination may remain on site.
Common examples include state registries of contaminated properties,
deed notices, and advisories. Due to the nature of some informational
devices (e.g., deed or hazard notices) and their potential non-
enforceability, it is important to carefully consider the objective of this
category of ICs. Informational devices are most likely to be used as a
secondary "layer" to help ensure the overall reliability of other ICs.
ICs at Federal Facilities
Because of Federal ownership, there are significant differences in the
way ICs are applied at Federal facilities. Some proprietary or
governmental controls cannot be applied on active Federal facilities.
However, for properties being transferred as part of a base closure, the
Department of Defense does have the authority to restrict property
by retaining a property interest (i.e., an easement intended to assure
the protectiveness of the remedy). For active bases, ICs are
commonly addressed through remedy selection documents, base
master plans, and separate MOUs. More detailed information on ICs
and Federal facilities is contained in "Institutional Controls: A
-------
Reference Manual (Workgroup Draft - March 1998)" and in the
FFRRO 1C guidance ("Institutional Controls and Transfer of Real
Property under CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(A), (B), or (C)," January,
2000).
Legal Mechanisms for Imposing ICs Under
CERCLA and RCRA
CERCLA and RCRA employ the same types of ICs to reduce exposure
to residual contamination. However, as explained below, EPA's legal
authority to establish, monitor and enforce ICs varies significantly
between the two programs. As a result, officials involved in cleanups
need to appreciate the range of options available under each program
before determining whether, and to what extent, ICs should be
incorporated into a remedial decision.
At CERCLA sites, EPA often imposes ICs via enforcement tools (e.g.,
UAOs, AOCs, and CDs). Since these enforcement tools only bind the
parties named in the enforcement document, it may be necessary to
require the parties to implement ICs that "run with the land" (i.e.,
applied to the property itself) in order to bind subsequent land owners.
For Fund-lead CERCLA sites, the lead agency has the responsibility for
ensuring ICs are implemented. Legal mechanisms such as UAOs,
AOCs and CDS should also require reporting to EPA and/or the state of
any sale of the property.
Under RCRA, ICs are typically imposed through permit conditions or
by orders issued under section 3008(h). In certain circumstances
cleanup may also be required under the imminent hazard order authority
of section 7003. In the case where an 1C is meant to continue beyond
the expiration of a permit, an order may be required to ensure the 1C
remains in effect for the long term RCRA permit writers should
incorporate ICs as specific permit conditions, where appropriate. By
doing so, such conditions would be enforceable through the permit. At
the same time, permit writers should consider whether additional ICs
are available (e.g., governmental and/or proprietary controls) to ensure
that subsequent property owners will be aware of, and bound by, the
same types of restrictions. Similar factors should be considered when
preparing RCRA corrective action orders to ensure that both the current
facility owner/operator and any subsequent property owners are
subject to effective and enforceable ICs that will minimize exposure to
any residual contamination.
One significant difference between RCRA and CERCLA is that RCRA
generally does not authorize EPA to acquire any interests in property.
Therefore, many proprietary controls (such as easements) will require
the involvement of third parties (e.g., states or local governments) under
RCRA.
ICs and Future Land Use
Land use and ICs are usually linked. As a site moves through the
Superfund Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) or RCRA
Facility Investigation/Corrective Measures Study (RFI/CMS), site
managers should develop assumptions about reasonably anticipated
future land uses and consider whether ICs will be needed to maintain
these uses over time. EPA's land use guidance (Land Use in CERCLA
Remedy Selection Process, OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-04, May
25, 1995) states that the site manager should discuss reasonably
anticipated future uses of the site with local land use planning
authorities, local officials, and the public, as appropriate, as early as
possible during the scoping phase of the RI/FS or RFI/CMS. Where
there is a possibility that the land will not be cleaned up to a level that
supports unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the site manager
should also discuss potential ICs that may be appropriate, including
legal implementation issues, jurisdictional questions, the impact of
layering ICs and reliability and enforceability concerns. It is also
important for the site manager to recognize that, in addition to land
uses, ICs can be used to affect specific activities at sites (e.g., fishing
prohibitions).
Screening ICs
The need for ICs can be driven by both the need to guard against
potential exposure and to protect a remedy. If any remedial options
being evaluated in the FS or CMS leave waste in place that would not
result in unrestricted use and unlimited exposure, ICs should be
considered to ensure that unacceptable exposure from residual
contamination does not occur. However, ICs may not be necessary if
the waste that is left at the site allows for unrestricted use and
unlimited exposure. Remedy options that typically leave residual
wastes on site and necessitate ICs include capping waste in place,
construction of containment facilities, natural attenuation and long-
term pumping-and-treatment of groundwater.
ICs should be evaluated in the same level of detail as other remedy
components. ICs are considered response actions under CERCLA and
RCRA. ICs must meet all statutory requirements, and are subject to
the nine evaluation criteria outlined in the NCP (40 CFR 300.430
(e)(9)(i)) for CERCLA cleanups. The balancing criteria recommended
for corrective actions should generally be used in evaluating ICs under
RCRA. However, before applying these criteria, the site manager
should first make several determinations:
• Objective—Clearly state what will be accomplished through the
use of ICs.
Example: Restrict the use of groundwater as a drinking water
source until the Maximum Contaminant Levels are met.
• Mechanism—Determine the specific types of ICs that can be used
to meet the various remedial objectives.
Example: Work with the local jurisdiction to develop
ordinances to restrict well drilling or prohibit groundwater
access until cleanup goals are met; record the groundwater
contamination in the land record to provide notice of the issue
to the public; and record contaminated aquifers on state
registry to maintain institutional tracking.
• Timing—Investigate when the 1C needs to be implemented and/or
secured and how long it must be in place. Since ICs are often
-------
implemented by parties other than EPA, the time required to secure
an 1C should be taken into consideration.
Example: A deed notice may be required in the short-term, and
a formal petition for a zoning change may be necessary in the
long-term, both of which need to be in place prior to site
deletion from the NPL.
• Responsibility—Research, discuss, and document any agreement
with the proper entities on exactly who will be responsible for
securing, maintaining and enforcing the control. It might be useful to
secure a written statement of the appropriate entities' willingness to
implement, monitor, and enforce the 1C prior to the signature of the
remedy decision document.
Example: Work with the State to determine whether it is
willing and able to hold an enforceable easement to ensure
appropriate land use; in addition, determine whether the local
government is willing and able to change and enforce the
applicable zoning requirements. If assurances cannot be
obtained, then ICs may not be a viable component of the
remedy.
Typically, the site manager is faced with balancing the relative strengths
of ICs in terms of enforceability, permanence, etc., with achieving
remedial objectives. As discussed previously, one option is to "layer"
different controls to ensure long-term reliability. For example, layered
ICs may involve concurrent use of enforceable agreements, deed notices,
and adoption of land use controls by a local government. ICs may also
be used in series. For example, an enforcement order may prohibit the
land owner from disturbing the cap on his/her property (i.e., a short-
term control), until the local government goes through the process of
restricting the future use of the land (i.e., the long-term control).
Determining the State Role
Where EPA is implementing a remedy, states often play a major role in
implementing and enforcing ICs. As stated previously, some
governmental controls may be established under state jurisdiction: the
state may use its enforcement tools to compel the PRP or facility land
owner to limit site activities; the state may provide the notification or
information on the contamination that remains on-site; or the state may
assume ownership of a property in order to implement, maintain, and
enforce proprietary controls. Under RCRA, the state will typically be
imposing and overseeing the remedial action.
When to Begin Coordinating with the State
No matter what role the state assumes with ICs, the EPA site manager
should begin coordinating with the state early in the RI/FS (for
CERCLA) or RFI/CMS (for RCRA) process or after sampling has been
completed and the extent of the risk is known. Even if ICs are not
required for the long-term maintenance of the selected remedy, they
may be necessary during the response activities.
Factors to Consider in State Coordination
In evaluating the need for and the type of ICs that may be implemented
at a site, the site manager should consult with their Regional attorney
to determine who has the proper legal authority to implement and
enforce the proposed controls. Certain states have enacted statutes
that provide the state with the legal authority to restrict land use at
contaminated properties. In addition, several states have adopted
statutes providing for conservation easements. These easements
override common law barriers to the enforcement of easements by
parties who do not own adjacent property. For example, at many
sites, the state, in cooperation with the PRPs or facility
owner/operator, may use its own enforcement tools to restrict the use
of the land and ensure that the selected remedy, including ICs, is
implemented and maintained. At other sites, a property interest may
be conveyed (either directly or, if necessary, through EPA at
Superfund sites) from the owner of the land to the state which
becomes the holder and enforcer of a proprietary control. Finally, the
state is often responsible for issuing advisories or warnings of
potential risks (e.g., fishing or swimming prohibitions), and providing
registries of hazardous waste sites (i.e., informational controls).
If it appears that the state will be relied upon to establish the ICs, the
site manager should immediately talk to state agency personnel to
gauge their willingness to establish, maintain and enforce the control, if
necessary. This discussion is encouraged regardless of the type of
IC(s) that will be implemented. The site manager should work with his
or her state counterpart to identify and contact the appropriate state
agency and personnel for each proposed 1C. In addition, if a property
interest is conveyed by the land owner to EPA to perform a remedial
action (e.g., to ensure the reliability of the ICs restricting the use of the
land), CERCLA requires the state to accept transfer of the title from
EPA following completion of the CERCLA remedial action. If the
state does not agree to accept title to the property, the site manager
must find another party to assume ownership (e.g., a local
government, community group or trust) or another type of 1C (e.g.,
local government control)3 must be selected. State assurances for
O&M or for transfer of property interest are formalized in a
Superfund State Contract (SSC), cooperative agreement, or MOU that
is negotiated between the state and EPA.
State Role at Fund-Financed CERCLA Cleanups
The state assumes other responsibilities for ICs if the remedial action,
including the ICs, will be Fund-financed under CERCLA. CERCLA
specifically requires that the state provide assurance that it will
assume responsibility for operation and maintenance (O&M) of the
selected remedy before a Fund-financed remedial action is
implemented. The NCP requires the state to ensure that any ICs
implemented as part of the remedial action at the site are in place,
reliable, and will remain in place after the initiation of O&M. These
assurances are also documented in a cooperative agreement, SSC or
MOU.
State Role at RCRA Sites
Likewise, either the state or a third party must be willing to
accept property interests at PRP-led sites.
-------
Under RCRA, states will typically be the implementing and overseeing
agency. Therefore the state, when authorized and overseeing corrective
action, will be responsible for identifying appropriate institutional
controls. Where EPA is overseeing the remedy there are no state
assurance requirements in RCRA Corrective Action. However, because
there is no Federal mechanism in RCRA allowing EPA to acquire
interest in property, EPA may be forced to rely on third parties
(typically state or local government) to establish, maintain and enforce
most types of ICs.
State Role at Federal Facilities
At Federal facilities, the landholding agency is ultimately responsible
for all response activities. The state is not required to provide
assurance that it will assume responsibility for O&M. However, states
may enter into an agreement with the landholding Federal agency to
monitor and enforce ICs at Federal sites.
Determining the Role of Local Governments
CERCLA, RCRA, and the NCP do not specify a role for local
governments in implementing the selected remedy. However, a local
government is often the only entity that has the legal authority to
implement, monitor and enforce certain types of ICs (e.g., zoning
changes). While EPA and the states take the lead on CERCLA and
RCRA response activities, local governments have an important role to
play in at least three areas: (1) determining future land use; (2) helping
engage the public and assisting in public involvement activities; and (3)
implementation and long-term monitoring and enforcement of ICs.
Therefore, it is critical that the site manager and his or her state
counterpart involve the appropriate local government agency in
discussions on the types of controls that are being considered. The
capability and willingness of the local government to implement and
ensure the short- or long-term effectiveness of the proposed ICs should
be considered during the RI/FS or RFI/CMS. In certain cases,
cooperative agreements may be considered to assist local governments
in the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of required ICs.
Evaluating ICs
Once the site manager has considered the objectives, mechanism, timing,
and entity responsible for implementing, monitoring and enforcing the
ICs, the next phase is selecting the ICs. The following sections contain
a discussion of the CERCLA and RCRA factors that site managers
should generally consider when evaluating ICs during the FS or CMS.
If the site manager proposes to layer or use the ICs in series, he or she
should also characterize the likelihood that this approach can actually
be achieved. It is important to note that at CERCLA sites, the statute
requires the site manager to evaluate ICs, just like other remedy
components, against the nine NCP criteria. The site manager must
ensure that remedies are protective of human health and the
environment. ICs may be an important element in this determination.
RCRA sites managers have the latitude to use balancing criteria, but
unlike CERCLA, RCRA regulations do not require this balancing step.
The CERCLA and RCRA criteria are categorized below in three groups:
threshold, balancing, and modifying.
Threshold Criteria
ICs in CERCLA Removal Actions
ICs will rarely be a component of true emergencies where a time
critical action serves as the only response at a site. It is more likely
that a site manager will choose ICs as a component of a non-time
critical removal action or during a follow-up remedial action. A
post-removal site control agreement must be completed before
commencing a fund-financed removal action where ICs are included
in post-removal site control (OSWER Directive No. 9360.22-02).
As in the remedial process, begin considering ICs when conducting
an analysis of land use assumptions during the removal decision-
making process. Where a final, site-wide, non-time critical removal
remedy decision will be made, ICs should be thoroughly and
rigorously evaluated with all other response actions in the
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA). In short, because
ICs are considered to be actions, apply the full criteria required by
the NCP for EE/CA evaluations. It is anticipated that ICs would
not be chosen as the sole action for a removal.
It is fundamental that a remedy under RCRA or CERCLA that
includes ICs meet the following threshold criteria:
• protect human health and the environment; and
-------
• for CERCLA sites, comply with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs).
The site manager for RCRA facilities should also consider whether
remedies that include ICs:
• attain media cleanup standards or comply with applicable standards
for waste management; and
• control the source(s) of releases so as to reduce or eliminate, to the
extent practicable, further releases of hazardous waste that might
cause threats to human health and the environment.
Balancing Criteria
The site manager evaluates the individual, layered or series of ICs to
determine their respective strengths and weaknesses. ICs are also
evaluated in combination with engineered controls to identify the key
tradeoffs that should be balanced for the site. Following are balancing
criteria required by CERCLA and the NCP and recommended by the
RCRA program in guidance.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence (CERCLA) or
reliability (RCRA)—Under both CERCLA and RCRA, this factor
assesses the permanence/reliability and effectiveness of ICs that may be
used to manage treatment residuals or untreated wastes that remain at
the site over time. When evaluating whether an 1C will be effective over
the long-term, the site manager should consider factors such as: whether
the property is a government-owned site or a privately-owned site that
is likely to change hands; the applicability of ICs to multiple property
owners; the size of the area to be managed; the number of parcels; the
contaminated media to be addressed; the persistence of the
contamination; whether site contamination is well-defined; and whether
local governments or other governing bodies are willing and able to
monitor and enforce long-term ICs. The site manager should also
consider the contaminated media to be addressed by the ICs. Different
ICs may be required for different media.
Where ICs must be effective for a long period, either proprietary or
governmental controls should be considered because they generally run
with the land and are enforceable. However, both proprietary and
governmental controls have weaknesses in terms of long-term reliability.
For example, with proprietary controls, common law doctrines may
restrict enforcement by parties who do not own adjoining land. This
can render proprietary controls ineffective if EPA or another party
capable of enforcing the control is not the owner of the adjacent
property. To eliminate this problem, proprietary controls may be
established "in gross," signifying that the holder of the control does not
need to be the owner of the adjacent property. However, some courts
do not recognize in gross proprietary controls.
At some sites, governmental controls may be preferable to proprietary
controls. For example, the site manager might work with a local
government to pass an ordinance to restrict construction or invasive
digging that might disturb or cause exposure to covered residual lead
contamination in a large residential area. The implementation of
government controls might be considered a beneficial addition to
information tools that may be forgotten over the long term or an
enforcement action that would be binding only on certain parties.
Proprietary controls would likely be deemed impractical at such a site
due to the complex and uncertain task of obtaining easements from
multiple property owners.
Like proprietary controls, the use of governmental controls may not
be effective over the long term. Of primary concern are the political
and fiscal constraints that may affect the ability of a state or local
government to enforce the controls. Similarly, governmental controls
may be problematic when the local or state government is or may
become the site owner or operator because of the appearance of a
conflict of interest. Regardless of the control selected, its viability
over the long term needs to be closely evaluated.
Reduction oftoxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment—
This CERCLA and RCRA criterion does not apply since ICs are not
treatment measures.
Short-term Effectiveness—Short-term effectiveness of ICs at
CERCLA and RCRA sites should be evaluated with respect to
potential effects on human health and the environment during
construction and implementation of the remedy. In order to satisfy
this criterion, the remedy might entail the use of an 1C through an
enforcement order to compel the PRP to restrict certain uses of the
groundwater at or down gradient from the site during remediation.
After remediation is complete, other ICs might be implemented if
residual contamination remains on site (i.e., implementing ICs in
series).
Implementability—This CERCLA and RCRA criterion evaluates the
administrative feasibility of an action and/or the activities that need to
be coordinated with other offices and agencies. Implementation
factors that generally should be considered for ICs include whether the
entity responsible for implementation possesses the jurisdiction,
authority, willingness and capability to establish, monitor and enforce
ICs. A proper analysis of implementability can be complex,
considering such diverse factors as the extent to which land being
restricted is owned by liable parties and the willingness and capability
of the local government or other authority responsible for establishing
controls for land or resource use.
Cost—This CERCLA and RCRA criterion includes estimated capital
and O&M costs. In CERCLA, estimated costs for implementing,
monitoring, and enforcing ICs should be developed. For example, cost
estimates for ICs might include legal fees associated with obtaining
easements restricting land use, the costs of purchasing property rights
(e.g.., groundwater rights, easements), or the wages of the state or local
government personnel that will regularly monitor the 1C to ensure that
it has not been violated. It is interesting to note that once the total
life-cycle costs of implementing, monitoring and enforcing an 1C -
which may exceed 30 years - are fully calculated, it may actually be
less costly in the long term to implement a remedy that requires
treatment of the waste. For more information on estimating response
costs, see "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates
During the Feasibility Study," EPA 540-R-00-002, OSWER 9355.0-
075. In RCRA, costs historically have played a less prominent role in
remediation selection. Typically cost estimates are expected to be
developed at the discretion of the owner/operator, although
-------
implementors should take into account sites where ICs are
inappropriately costly.
Modifying Criteria
Typically the site manager presents the proposed remedy, including
ICs to the state, local government, and community for comment prior to
implementation. The issues and concerns of these stakeholders may
result in modifications to the remedy and are addressed by the site
manager in the remedy decision document. Following is a discussion of
these modifying criteria (note: these criteria are only
recommended in RCRA guidance).
State Acceptance—The site manager should make the appropriate
state authorities aware of the basis and scope of the ICs to be
implemented under CERCLA or RCRA, and what role, if any, the state
is expected to play to make ICs an effective part of the remedy. The
state can formally express its concerns about the use of ICs, in general,
and its role, in particular, or indicate its willingness to take on the
responsibility for implementing and enforcing the proposed ICs.
If the state's position is uncertain at the time the remedy is selected
(e.g., for CERCLA sites, when the ROD is signed or, for RCRA
facilities, when the permit/order is issued or modified), it may be
necessary to outline contingent remedial approaches in the decision
documents. Specifically, remedies that require long-term ICs to remain
protective may require alternative actions (e.g., additional soil removal)
if the ICs are later determined to be unenforceable or cannot meet the
remedial objectives. Alternatively, at a RCRA site, it may be necessary
to leave a facility under a permit or other mechanism enforceable by the
regulating agency. If the state's willingness or ability to implement or
enforce an 1C changes after remedy selection, the protectiveness of the
remedy should generally be re-evaluated and, when necessary, remedial
decisions revised. Under CERCLA, this may require an Explanation of
Significant Differences (ESD), or even a ROD amendment. Under
RCRA, a permit modification or change to a corrective action order may
be necessary. It is important to note that under no circumstances can a
Fund-financed CERCLA remedial action be initiated without receiving
state assurances on ICs and property transfer.
Local Government and Community Acceptance—Involving the
community and local government early during the remedy decision
process will enable the site manager to more fully evaluate 1C options.
Discussions with the local government and community give the site
manager the opportunity to:
• gather local government and community input on the
proposed ICs;
• identify whether a particular stakeholder group may be
harmed as a result of a proposed 1C (for example, will a ban
on fishing cause an economic hardship in the community);
• receive comment on the impacts of the potential ICs on
religious or cultural customs and beliefs (e.g., preventing
access to property which grows the plants that are used in a
tribal ceremony); and
• determine if the community has special needs in regards to the
1C (for example, will it be necessary to publish informational
devices in multiple languages).
In addition, the local government and community's response to certain
types of ICs and the willingness and capability of the local
government to monitor ICs will help the site manager determine
whether the ICs will be effective overall. This is especially important
if nearby property owners will need to agree to implement proprietary
controls or if other governmental ICs (e.g., zoning changes) will have
an impact on the community. Early involvement will also enable the
community to work with the local government to develop innovative
approaches to using ICs, especially in light of any future land use
plans.
As with other aspects of the proposed remedy, the community should
have the opportunity to comment on the proposed 1C component of
the remedy during the public comment period. It may be necessary to
educate the community about ICs so that its members understand how
the different ICs may impact their property and activities. Under
CERCLA, it may also be possible, as long as all appropriate
requirements are met, to provide a Technical Assistance Grant to the
community so they can hire a technical expert to assist them in
evaluating ICs and the overall remedy.
In some cases, it may be appropriate not to identify the exact 1C
required at the time of the remedy decision. In these instances the
critical evaluation of the available ICs should still be conducted and the
specific objective(s) of the ICs should be clearly stated in the ROD or
other decision document. Examples of when this flexibility may be
appropriate are contingent remedies based on pilot studies or if a
remedy would not be implemented for several years and the state is
developing enabling language for Conservation Easements authority.
Site Manager Responsibilities After ICs are
Selected
The site manager's responsibilities for ICs does not end once the ICs
are selected. Site managers also should ensure that the ICs are
actually implemented, are reliable, are enforced, and remain effective.
It should be noted that NPL sites cannot be deleted until the entire
remedy, including ICs, have been implemented. This may involve the
following:
• working with state and local governmental entities to obtain
commitments and resources for implementing and enforcing ICs,
including negotiating a CERCLA SSC with the state to obtain
assurances that the ICs will be put in place, are reliable and will
remain in place after initiation of O&M activities;
• ensuring that the PRP or facility owner complies with the
provisions in the enforcement tools to implement the ICs and
provides notice of the ICs to potential future users/owners of the
property;
• working with other Federal agencies to implement and enforce
ICs;
• acquiring property for implementation of the CERCLA remedy;
and
• checking the status of ICs during the CERCLA five-year review.
-------
Conclusion
The ICs outlined in this fact sheet can be important elements of
environmental cleanups. ICs play an important role in limiting risk and
are often needed to ensure that engineered remedies are not affected by
future site activities. When selecting ICs, the site manager needs to
evaluate the situation at the site, define the needs that ICs are intended
to address, identify the kinds of legal and other tools available to meet
these needs, and ensure the ICs are implemented effectively. All of this
requires up-front planning and working closely with the Regional office
attorneys, the state, community, and PRPs or facility owner/operators.
Key concepts to keep in mind when implementing ICs are provided in
the text box below.
If you have questions regarding the material covered in this fact sheet,
consult the draft document, "Institutional Controls: A Reference
Manual" or contact your Regional Coordinator in the OERR Technical
Regional Response Center. For information on model language for
enforcement or legal documents used to implement ICs, consult your
Regional Counsel, OSRE or the Office of General Counsel.
Key Concepts
Under the NCP, the use of ICs should not substitute for
active response measures (unless active measures are not
practicable).
If the site cannot accommodate unrestricted use and unlimited
exposure, an 1C will generally be required.
Make sure the objective(s) of the 1C are clear in the decision
document.
Coordinate early with state and local governments.
Layer ICs and/or place them in series depending upon site
circumstances.
Evaluate ICs as rigorously as other remedial alternatives.
Understand the life-cycle strengths, weaknesses and costs for
the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of ICs.
Get assurances, in writing, from entities that will implement,
monitor, and enforce ICs.
Remember that since all ICs have weaknesses, the role of the
RCRA/CERCLA decision makers is to select the best ICs to
protect human health and the environment.
10
-------
Checklist for Implementing ICs
During the initial phase of cleanup (i.e., RI/FS or RFI/CMS), the site manager should:
establish clear objectives (what are you trying to accomplish through the use of ICs?)
discuss future land use plans with the community and local government to help in analyzing the
appropriate ICs and other remedial alternatives
evaluate ICs using the appropriate threshold, balancing, and modifying criteria
coordinate with regional attorneys on legal matters and the State as appropriate
be innovative/creative but realistic
During remedy selection, the site manager should:
present information that helps the public understand the impacts of the specific ICs and their
relationship with the overall remedy
clearly describe the objectives to be attained by ICs
specify performance standards (e.g., prevent exposure to contaminated ground water by prohibiting
well drilling)
consider layering ICs to enhance their overall effectiveness
discussions with entities (e.g., local/state governments) involved in implementing ICs
discuss the kinds of controls envisioned and include enough information to show that effective
implementation of the ICs can reasonably be expected
discuss plans for monitoring land use and other aspects of the remedy that depend on ICs
discuss the enforcement mechanisms that are anticipated to ensure the long-term reliability of the
ICs
continue coordination with attorneys
During remedy implementation (i.e., RD/RA and CMI), the site manager should:
ensure that appropriate measures are taken to implement the ICs (e.g., arrange discussions
between PRPs, other property owners, and local government or state officials)
be aware that ICs need to be fully implemented to obtain a RCRA permit termination, or for
CERCLA sites, fully implemented to obtain RA completion, a site completion, and partial or full
deletion
prepare an ESD or ROD amendment for CERCLA sites or a permit modification or order revision for
RCRA sites if the ICs will not result in the remedy being protective of human health and the
environment; if this becomes necessary, also ensure that the public is provided an opportunity to
comment on the proposed replacement ICs
During Post-Remediation activities (e.g., a CERCLA five-year review), the site manager should:
Evaluate both the administrative/legal components as well as the physical evidence to ensure that
ICs are both implemented and fully effective
Document these results in the Five-Year Review Report (for CERCLA sites)
-------
Institutional Controls Matrix
Type of
Institutional Control
Definition & Example
Benefits
Limitations
Enforcement
GOVERNMENTAL
CONTROLS
Controls using the
regulatory authority of a
governmental entity to
impose restrictions on
citizens or property under its
jurisdiction. Generally, EPA
must turn to state or local
governments to establish
controls of this type.
For example, a local
jurisdiction may zone the site
to disallow uses that are
incompatible with the
remedy.
Do not require the
negotiation, drafting, or
recording of parcel-by-parcel
proprietary controls. This is
important with large numbers
of distinct parcels,
particularly where some of
the landowners are not liable
parties.
The legal impediments (e.g.,
whether the control "runs
with the land"; whether the
right to enforce the control
can be transferred to other
parties) to long-term
enforcement of proprietary
controls can be avoided;
governmental controls
remain effective so long as
they are not repealed and are
enforced.
Will almost always have to
be adopted and enforced by
a governmental entity other
than EPA (e.g., state or local
governments). Thus, their
effectiveness depends in
most cases upon the
willingness of state or local
governments to adopt them,
keep them in force, and
enforce them over the long
term. There may also be
enforcement costs for the
state or local jurisdiction.
Usually enforced by the
state or local government.
The willingness and
capability of the state or
local government to enforce
the 1C should be 12given due
consideration.
12
-------
Type of
Institutional Control
Definition & Example
Benefits
Limitations
Enforcement
1. Zoning
A common land use
restriction specifying
allowed land uses for certain
areas
Example: A local government
could prohibit residential
development in an area of
contamination or limit
gardening in certain areas
Zoning can be used to
prohibit activities that could
disturb certain aspects of a
remedy or to control certain
exposures not otherwise
protected under a remedy.
Zoning ordinances are not
necessarily permanent; they
can be repealed or local
governments can grant
exceptions after public
hearings.
Typical zoning
classifications such as
"industrial" and
"commercial" may not be
stringent enough for a
remedial context. For
example, many zoning
ordinances allow land uses
below a certain level of
intensity (e.g., allowing
residential uses in industrial
districts.) In addition,
existing "blanket" zoning
districts may not provide
appropriate restrictions for
specific remedy
considerations, and local
authorities may be
concerned about potential
legal challenges for "spot
zoning" when rezoning a
single parcel or small group
of parcels. Therefore, an
amendment to, or creative
application of the zoning
ordinance may be necessary
Zoning laws may not be fully
effective unless they are
monitored and enforced over
the long term and local
governments may not have
or be able to commit the
resources necessary to such
oversight.
13
-------
Type of
Institutional Control
Definition & Example
Benefits
Limitations
Enforcement
2. Local permits
Special permits outlining
specific requirements before
an activity can be authorized
Example: An ordinance
requiring that anyone
seeking a building permit in a
particular area be notified of
contamination
Can take advantage of
existing restrictions and
apply them to site-specific
situations
Often permits are narrowly
focused and the
requirements can be modified
over time.
Effectiveness of enforcement
depends on the willingness
and capability of the local
governmental entity to
monitor compliance and take
enforcement action.
3. Other police power
ordinances
Controls placed on access or
use of certain areas
Example: Placing bans on
fishing and swimming in
specified areas
Can take advantage of
existing restrictions and
apply them to site-specific
situations
Bans on fishing or swimming
may be communicated
through posting of the
ordinance. However,
postings, by themselves,
may not be effective in
preventing incidental contact
or consumption.
Effectiveness of enforcement
depends on the willingness
and ability of the local
governmental entity to
monitor compliance and take
enforcement action
4. Ground water use
restrictions
Restrictions directed at
limiting or prohibiting certain
uses of ground water which
may include limitations or
prohibitions on well drilling.
Example: Establishment of
ground water management
zones or protection areas;
capping or closing of wells
Can take advantage of
existing restrictions and
apply them to site-specific
situations
Implementation of such
restrictions are dependent on
a state's ground water
ownership and use laws.
Local or state expenditures
may be necessary to
compensate owners of
condemned property.
Effectiveness of enforcement
depends on the willingness
and ability of the local
governmental entity to
monitor compliance and take
enforcement action
14
-------
Type of
Institutional Control
Definition & Example
Benefits
Limitations
Enforcement
5. Condemnation of property
Taking over title of a
property by condemning it
under a government entity's
eminent domain authority.
Example: Taking over title
through condemnation to
prevent the site from being
used.
Used as a way to take title of
a property to control land
use or impose a desired land
use for a public purpose.
Property may be condemned
under Federal, state, or local
authority.
The owner of the property is
entitled to compensation,
may be recoverable under
section 107 of CERCLA.
Not applicable.
15
-------
Type of
Institutional Control
Definition & Example
Benefits
Limitations
Enforcement
PROPRIETARY
CONTROLS
Tools based on private
property law used to restrict
or affect the use of property
Can be implemented without
the intervention of any
federal, state, or local
regulatory authority
Advisable when restrictions
on activities are intended to
be long-term or permanent
(contaminants will be left in
place that prevent
unrestricted use)
Since property laws vary by
state, always check whether
or not there are court-
recognized doctrines that
would limit the extent to
which the controls run with
the land or are transferable to
other parties
Property law requires a
conveyance of a property
interest from a landowner to
another party for a restriction
to be enforceable
To be enforceable in most
courts, the instrument used
for the conveyance of any
property right should clearly
state:
• the nature and extent of
the control to be imposed;
• whether the control will
"run with the land" (i.e.,
be binding on subsequent
purchasers);
• whether the right to
enforce the control can be
transferred to other
parties
16
-------
Type of
Institutional Control
Definition & Example
Benefits
Limitations
Enforcement
1. Easements
A property right conveyed
by a landowner to another
party which gives the
second party rights with
regard to the first party's
land. An "affirmative"
easement allows the holder
to enter upon or use
another's property for a
particular purpose. A
"negative" easement
imposes limits on how the
landowner can use his or her
own property.
Examples:
Affirmative easement -
access by a non-landowner
to a property to conduct
monitoring
Negative easement - prohibit
well-drilling on the property
by the landowner
Most flexible and commonly
used proprietary control
EPA can hold an "in gross"
easement since it generally
will not own an adjacent
parcel of land. An
"appurtenant" easement can
only be given to adjacent
landowners. (Note: the site
manager or Regional Counsel
should check all applicable
state property laws and
should not consider "in
gross" easements to be
transferable).
Most useful in situations
where a single parcel of land
is involved and the current
owner of the land is subject
to regulation under CERCLA
orRCRA
For an easement to be
created there must be a
conveyance from one party
to another. An easement
cannot be established unless
there is a party willing to
hold the easement. This can
present difficulties since
EPA cannot hold an
easement under the NCP
without compliance with all
procedures required by
section 104(j) of CERCLA.
Furthermore, some state
governments cannot hold
easements, and other parties
may be unwilling to do so.
Since the owner may not be
the only party with whom it
is necessary to negotiate, a
title search should be
conducted to ensure that
agreements have been
obtained from all necessary
parties (e.g., holders of prior
easements with right of
access)
Less useful where a large
number of parcels are
involved and the owners are
not PRPs because
In general, an easement is
fully enforceable as long as
its nature and scope are clear
and notice is properly given
to the parties against whom
the agreements are binding
(e.g. by recording the
easement in land records)
Use caution when
determining who will hold
the easement. Sometimes
PRPs acquire easements from
other landowners thus taking
on the burden of negotiating
and paying for them.
However, as a third party,
EPA may not have the right
to enforce or transfer the
easement unless that right is
specified in the agreement
between the PRP and other
landowners.
The terms of easements are
enforceable by the holder in
the state court with
jurisdiction over the
property's location.
17
-------
Type of
Institutional Control
Definition & Example
Benefits
Limitations
Enforcement
2. Covenants
A covenant is an agreement
between one landowner to
another made in connection
with a conveyance of
property to use or refrain
from using the property in a
certain manner.
Similar to easements but are
subject to a somewhat
different set of formal
requirements
Example: A covenant not to
dig on a certain portion of
the property.
Can be used to establish an
institutional control where
the remediated property is
being transferred from the
current owner to another
party
This agreement is binding on
subsequent owners of the
land if: (1) notice is given to
the subsequent land owner,
(2) there is a clear statement
of intent to bind future
owners, (3) the agreement
"touches and concerns" the
land, and (4) there is vertical
and horizontal privity
between the parties.1
Enforcement of covenants is
subject to state law and
enforceable by the holder in
the state court with
jurisdiction over the
property's location.
Horizontal privity means that only a contract party may claim relief for a breach of a contract warranty or a condition. In other words, no person other
than the buyer can sue for damages that arise out of the breach of a contract warranty or condition. Vertical privity means that each party in a distribution chain
only has a contract with the person ahead of him or her in the chain. For example, vertical privity would mean a consumer only has a remedy against the person
from whom he or she purchased a particular item and could not sue the manufacturer.
18
-------
Type of
Institutional Control
Definition & Example
Benefits
Limitations
Enforcement
3. Equitable Servitude
Closely related to covenants,
equitable servitudes arose
when courts of equity
enforced agreements that did
not meet all of the formal
requirements of covenants.
Most likely to have value as
an institutional control where
a party responsible for
cleanup expects to own
neighboring property for a
long period (as might be the
case in partial military base
closures)
The agreement is binding on
subsequent owners of the
land if: (1) notice is given to
the subsequent land owner,
(2) there is a clear statement
of intent to bind future
owners, (3) the agreement
"touches and concerns" the
land. The third requirement
should be met by any
agreement that restricts what
the owner can do with the
land.
The ability to enforce an
equitable servitude "in
gross" against subsequent
landowners is less likely to
be recognized compared to
easements and covenants,
but this depends greatly on
jurisdiction.
The terms of equitable
servitudes are enforceable
by the holder in the state
court with jurisdiction over
the property's location.
4. Reversionary Interest
A reversionary interest is
created when a landowner
deeds property to another,
but the deed specifies that
the property will revert to the
original owner under
specified conditions. It
places a condition on the
transferee's right to own and
occupy the land. If the
condition is violated, the
property is returned to the
original owner or the owner's
successors.
Example: Failure to maintain
the integrity of a cap
Binding upon any
subsequent purchasers
Most useful where it can be
assumed that the original
owner will be available over a
long period to conduct
further response determined
to be necessary (e.g., where
a Federal agency is selling
the property)
Not useful if there is a
chance that the original
owner will not remain in
existence for a long time
Each owner in the chain of
title must comply with
conditions placed on the
property. If a condition is
violated, the property can
revert to the original owner,
even if there have been
several transfers in the chain
of title.
The terms of reversionary
interests are enforceable by
the holder in the state court
with jurisdiction over the
property's location.
19
-------
Type of
Institutional Control
Definition & Example
Benefits
Limitations
Enforcement
5. State Use Restrictions
State statutes providing
owners of contaminated
property with the authority
to establish use restrictions
specifically for contaminated
property
For example, Connecticut
property owners who wish to
file an environmental use
restriction must demonstrate
that each person holding an
interest in the land
irrevocably subordinates
their interest in the land to
the environmental use
restriction, and that the use
restriction shall run with the
land.2
Overrides common law
impediments to allow for
long term enforceability of
real property interests
In some cases, the authority
to acquire or enforce the
restrictions is conferred only
on the state. Therefore, the
state's assistance is
necessary to implement and
enforce.
Determine whether the
restriction can be federally
enforced; if not, investigate
whether the state is willing to
take on the role of
enforcement
CT General Statutes, 1997, Vol. 8, Title 22a, Section 22a-13 3n through 22a-133s, contains the following provision: "No owner of land may record an
environmental use restriction on the land records of the municipality in which such land is located unless he simultaneously records documents which
demonstrate that each person holding an interest... irrevocably subordinates such interest to the environmental use restriction. An environmental use restriction
shall run with
land, shall bind the owner of the land and his successors and assigns, and shall be enforceable "
20
-------
Type of
Institutional Control
Definition & Example
Benefits
Limitations
Enforcement
6. Conservation Easements
Statutes adopted by some
states that establish
easements to conserve and
protect property and natural
resources
Example: Open space or
recreational space is
maintained to prevent
exposure or prevent uses
that might degrade a landfill
cap
These statutes override
common law technicalities
and barriers that may pertain
to traditional easements and
covenants (e.g., "in gross"
easements are not upheld in
some jurisdictions).
May only be used for a
narrow range of possible
purposes which could limit
their usefulness as
institutional controls
In general, the holder must
be a governmental body, a
charitable corporation,
association, or trust
ENFORCEMENT TOOLS
(With 1C Components)
Enforcement authority is
used to either (1) prohibit a
party from using land in
certain ways or from carrying
out certain activities at a
specified property or (2)
require a settling party to put
in place some other form of
control. This section
addresses Federal
enforcement tools as
opposed to those that may
be available to state or local
governments.
May be easier to establish
than proprietary controls
because EPA is not
dependent on 3rd parties to
establish and enforce them.
Typically only binding on
the original signatories of the
agreement; or binding only
the party(ies) to whom it is
issued in the case of a
Unilateral Administrative
Order.
Negotiations and finalization
of AOCs and CDs can be
lengthy.
Enforceable by EPA under
CERCLA and RCRA or by a
state if state enforcement
tools are used.
21
-------
Type of
Institutional Control
Definition & Example
Benefits
Limitations
Enforcement
1. Administrative Orders
An order directly restricting
the use of property by a
named party
An order also can used to
restrict the use of land
owned by a non-liable
party. This approach would
be used if no other method
(e.g., proprietary control,
governmental control) is
successful (see limitations).
Example: An order
prohibiting the transfer of
drums off site or dredging in
a containment area.
EPA has broad scope of
authority to issue orders to
protect public health and the
environment (section 106 of
CERCLA)
Can be implemented without
the execution of any further
property instruments
Can include provisions
requiring the property owner
to disclose the order's
existence to any potential
purchaser or lessee, and
notify EPA of any
anticipated change in
ownership, the identities of
any potential purchasers or
lessees.
Does not require an
agreement with the
landowner (though consent
orders are generally
considered more desirable).
Unilateral orders can be
easily modified in the event
that the control needs to be
modified or withdrawn
Does not bind subsequent
owners or parties not named
in the order (e.g., lessees).
However, depending upon
the facts of the case, an
environmental regulator may
have the authority to issue a
new order to the new owner.
An order to restrict anon-
liable party, may result in a
claim for compensation
under section 106(b).
Enforcement is by EPA (or
state if issued under state
authority).
Creates the threat of
potential penalties for
violations as an incentive to
properly maintain the control
22
-------
Type of
Institutional Control
Definition & Example
Benefits
Limitations
Enforcement
2. Consent Decrees
A CD is signed by a judge
and documents the
settlement of an enforcement
case. Similar to an
Administrative Order, it is
used to specify restrictions
on use of land by the settling
party.
Example: No well drilling on
the property.
Can be used to require a
settling party to:
1. file a separate
instrument conveying a
proprietary control, such
as an easement or
covenant to EPA or a
third party;
2. notify successors-in-
titleoftheCD, site, and
any easements;
3. notify EPA of any
anticipated change in
ownership and the name
and address of the
potential purchaser or
lease; and
4. can be used to require
settling non-property
owners (PRPs) to
attempt to obtain
easements from parties
that own land
contaminated by the
PRP in order to restrict
land or resource use.
CDs alone are not binding
on subsequent owners and
occupants.
Enforced by EPA (or state if
issued under state
authority); failure to comply
can result in penalties.3
While EPA may not be able to enter into CDs with federal agencies, states can.
23
-------
Type of
Institutional Control
Definition & Example
Benefits
Limitations
Enforcement
INFORMATIONAL
DEVICES
Tools, which often rely on
property record systems,
used to provide public
information about risks from
contamination
May effectively discourage
inappropriate land users from
acquiring the property
Easier to implement than
other controls because they
do not require a conveyance
to be negotiated
Has little or no effect on a
property owner's legal rights
regarding the future use of
the property
If not drafted well,
informational devices may
discourage appropriate
development and uses of
land
Not legally enforceable
24
-------
Type of
Institutional Control
Definition & Example
Benefits
Limitations
Enforcement
1. Deed notices
Commonly refers to a non-
enforceable, purely
informational document filed
in public land records that
alerts anyone searching the
records to important
information about the
property
Example: Notice may state
that the property is located
within a Superfund site,
identify the kinds of
contaminants present and
the risks they create, or
describe activities that could
result in undesirable
exposures to the
contaminants left on site.
May discourage
inappropriate land use
Easier to implement than
easements because they do
not require a conveyance to
be negotiated
Use only as a means of
alerting and informing the
public about information
related to a particular piece
of property
Because deed notices are not
a traditional real estate
interest, proper practice in
using them is not well
established. Investigate
state law and local practice in
advance to determine
whether such a notice will be
recorded, how it should be
drafted, and who would be
entitled to revoke it.
Before filing a notice, obtain
the property owner's
consent to avoid the risk of
claims for slander of title.
If not written properly, the
notice may discourage all
development, including uses
that would be appropriate for
the site, by creating a
perceived liability risk.
A deed notice is not an
interest in real property, so
recording a notice has little
or no effect on a property
owner's legal rights
regarding the future use of
the property (i.e., they are
non-enforceable).
25
-------
Type of
Institutional Control
Definition & Example
Benefits
Limitations
Enforcement
2. State registries of
hazardous waste sites
Registries containing
elements that can be used as
institutional controls
Examples: Compilation of
hazardous waste sites in the
state; annual reports
summarizing the status of
each site on the registry;
notice with the deed for sites
on the registry that the site is
contaminated; and the
requirement that any person
conveying title to property
on the registry to disclose to
all potential purchasers the
fact that the property is on
the registry
With the cooperation of the
state, registries can be useful
with other measures as part
of an overall remedy,
especially in providing
information to the public.
Some laws provide that the
use of a property on the
registry cannot be
substantially changed
without state approval.
The procedure for listing and
removing sites from
registries is solely at the
state's discretion
Any requirements are only
enforceable by the state
26
-------
Type of
Institutional Control
Definition & Example
Benefits
Limitations
Enforcement
3. Advisories
Warnings that provide
notice to potential users of
land, surface water or ground
water of some existing or
impending risk associated
with their use. Advisories are
usually issued by public
health agencies, either at the
Federal, state or local level.
Example: An advisory issued
to owners of private wells in
a particular area that
contamination has been
detected in the ground water
Can be useful with other
measures as part of an
overall remedy, especially in
providing information to the
public
These types of warnings, by
themselves, are not likely to
prevent incidental contact or
consumption. Use
advisories also have a very
short useful life and must
continually be enforced.
Advisories do not have any
legal effect nor do they
create any enforceable
restrictions.
27
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Administrative Orders on Consent (AOC) - A legal agreement signed by EPA and the potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) through which the PRP agrees to pay for or take the required corrective or cleanup actions, or refrain
from an activity. It describes the actions to be taken, may be subject to a comment period, applies to civil actions,
and can be enforced in court.
Advisories - Warnings, usually issued by public health agencies, either at the federal, state or local level, that
provide notice to potential users of land, surface water, or ground water of some existing or impending risk
associated with their use.
Appurtenant - A traditional property law term used to describe an easement that is created to benefit an adjacent
parcel of land (and it is held by the owner of that land). For example, an easement allowing the owner of one parcel
the right to cross an adjoining parcel would be appurtenant. (See also "In Gross")
Chain of Title - A history of conveyances and encumbrances affecting a title from the time that the original patent
was granted, or as far back as records are available.
Common Law - The body of law developed primarily from judicial decisions based on custom and precedent,
unwritten in statute or code, and constituting the basis of the legal system in all of the U.S. except Louisiana.
Condemnation of Property - When a local government, exercising eminent domain, condemns a property in order to
take over title.
Consent Decree (CD) - A legal document, approved by a judge, that formalizes an agreement reached between EPA
and PRPs through which PRPs will conduct all or part of a cleanup action at a Superfund site, cease or correct
actions or processes that are polluting the environment, or otherwise comply with EPA initiated regulatory
enforcement action. The consent decree describes the actions PRPs will take and is subject to a public comment
period.
Conservation Easements - Statutes adopted by some states that establish easements to conserve and protect
property and natural resources.
Conveyance - The transfer of title to property or a right of that property (i.e. easement) from one person to another.
Cooperative Agreement -An assistance agreement whereby EPA transfers money, property, services or anything
else of value to a state, university, or non-profit or not-for-profit organization for the accomplishment of authorized
activities or tasks.
Covenants -A promise by one landowner to another made in connection with a conveyance of property. Generally,
a covenant is a promise by the holder of a possessory interest in property to use or refrain from using the property in
a certain manner. Covenants are similar to easements but have been traditionally subject to somewhat different
formal requirements.
Deed - A signed and usually sealed instrument containing some legal transfer, bargain, or contract.
Deed Notice - Commonly refers to a non-enforceable, purely informational document filed in public land records that
alerts anyone searching the records to important information about the property.
Deed Restriction - Not a traditional property law term, but rather is used in the NCP as a shorthand way to refer to
types of institutional controls.
28
-------
Easements - A property right conveyed by a landowner to another party which gives the second party rights with
regard to the first party's land. An "affirmative" easement allows the holder to enter upon or use another's property
for a particular purpose. A "negative" easement imposes limits on how the landowner can use his or her own
property.
Enforcement Tools - Tools, such as administrative orders or consent decrees, available to EPA under CERCLA and
RCRA that can be used to restrict the use of land. Enforcement authority can be used to either (1) prohibit a party
from using land in certain ways or from carrying out certain activities at a specified property, or (2) require a settling
party to put in place some other form of control, such as a proprietary control.
Equitable Servitude - A real estate interest, similar to a covenant, that arose when courts of equity enforced
agreements that did not meet all of the formal requirements for a covenant.
Government Controls - Controls using the regulatory authority of a governmental entity to impose restrictions on
citizens or sites under its jurisdiction. Generally, EPA must turn to state or local governments to establish controls
of this type.
In Gross - A traditional property law term used to describe easements that provide a benefit not related to any
property owned by the holder of the easement. Easements used under CERCLA and RCRA will generally be "in
gross" because the restrictions are generally not for the benefit of any particular neighboring parcel owned by the
holder of the easement.
Informational Devices - Informational tools that provide information or notification that residual or capped
contamination may remain on site. Common examples include state registries of contaminated properties, deed
notices, and advisories.
Institutional Controls - Non-engineering measures intended to affect human activities in such a way as to prevent or
reduce exposure to hazardous substances. They are almost always used in conjunction with, or as a supplement to,
other measures such as waste treatment or containment. There are four categories of institutional controls:
governmental controls; proprietary controls; enforcement tools; and informational devices.
Local Permits - Special permits outlining specific requirements before an activity can be authorized.
Memorandum of Understanding - A document which outlines an agreement in principle between its signatories.
Proprietary Controls - Tools based on private property law used to restrict or affect the use of property.
Reversionary Interest- A real estate interest created when a landowner deeds property to another, but the deed
specifies that the property will revert to the original owner under specified conditions.
"run with the land" - An expression indicating a right or restriction that affects all current and future owners of a
property.
State Use Restrictions - Statutes enacted by some states providing authority to establish use restrictions
specifically for contaminated property.
State Registries of Hazardous Waste Sites - Registries established by state legislatures that contain information
about properties. Types of registries include a list of hazardous waste sites in the state; annual reports submitted to
the legislature summarizing the status of each site on the registry; and notice with the deed for sites on the registry
that the site is contaminated.
29
-------
Superfund State Contract (SSC) - An agreement between EPA and the state before remedial action begins (at
Superfund sites where EPA is leading the response activities) that documents the state's assurances under the law
and outlines the roles and responsibilities of both parties.
Tailored Ordinances - Ordinances put in place by local governments with broad land use authority to control access
to or the use of certain areas. For example, ordinances that require fences or buffers around or that ban fishing or
swimming in contaminated areas.
Technical Assistance Grant - A EPA grant awarded to eligible community groups for the purpose of hiring an
independent technical advisor, enabling community members to participate more effectively in the decision-making
process at Superfund sites.
Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO)- A legal document signed by EPA directing the PRPs to take corrective
action or refrain from an activity. It describes the violations and actions to be taken, and can be enforced in court.
Zoning Restriction - Zoning authority exercised by local governments to specify land use for certain areas. For
example, a local government could prohibit residential development in an area of contamination or limit gardening in
certain areas.
30
-------
Revitalizing Southeastern Communities
Federal Agency Websites
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Brownfields
www.epa.gov/brownfields
Appalachian Regional Commission
www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeld= 1765
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
www.fs.fed.us
U.S. Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration
www.doc.gov/eda
U. S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
www.noaa.gov
U.S. Department of Defense:
Army Corps of Engineers
www.lrd.usace.army.mil/gl/brown.htm
U. S. Department of Defense:
Office of Economic Adjustment
http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/oea/home.nsf
U.S. Department of Energy
www. e n e rgy.gov
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
www.niehs.nih.gov/wetp/program/brownfields.htm
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Brownfields
www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf07/bfields.cfml
-------
U.S. Department of Justice: Weed and Seed
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/eows
U.S. Department of Labor
www.dol.gov
U.S. Department of Transportation:
Federal Transit Administration
www.fta.dot.gov
U.S. Department of Transportation:
Federal Highway Administration
www.fhwa.dot.gov
U.S. Department of Treasury:
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
www.cdfifund.gov/
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
www.fdic.gov/
Federal Housing Finance Board
ww.fhfb.gov
General Services Administration
www.gsa.gov
Small Business Administration
www.sbaonline.sba.gov
-------
Brownfields Handbook:
I How to Manage Federal
Environmental Liability Risks
: Printed on Recycled Paper
Recycled/Recyclable - Printed with vegetable oil-based inks on recycled paper (minimum 50% postconsumer)
-------
EPA330-B-01-001 Enforcement and
November 2002 Compliance
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/about/offices/osre.html Assurance
-------
Brownfields Handbook:
How to Manage Federal
Environmental Liability Risks
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Purpose and Use of This Handbook 9D
Introduction to Brownfields 11D
Superfund Redevelopment Initiative 13
RCRA Brownfields Prevention Initiative 15
USTfields Initiative 15
New Legislation 16
Statutory and Regulatory Provisions 19D
CERCLA 19
Contiguous Property Owners, Bona Fide Prospective Purchasers, and
Innocent Landowners 21
Secured Creditor Exemption 25
Limitation of Fiduciary Liability 27
Protection of Government Entities That Acquire
Property Involuntarily 29
De Minimis Waste Contributor Settlements, Ability to Pay, and the De
Micromis Exemption 31
Service Station Dealer Exemption 33
Municipal Solid Waste Exemption 35
Brownfields Grants, State and Tribal Funding 37
Limitations on EPA CERCLA Enforcement and Cost Recovery Authority 39
RCRA 43
Underground Storage Tanks- Lender Liability Rule 45
Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Closed and Closing
Hazardous Waste Management Facilities: Post-Closure Permit
Requirements and Closure Process 47
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule for Contaminated Media
(HWIR-Media)Rule 49
Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) CFR Amendments 51
EPA Policies and Guidances 53D
Policy Towards Owners of Residential Property at Superfund Sites 55
Policy Towards Owners of Property Containing Contaminated Aquifers 57
Policy on Interpreting CERCLA Provisions Addressing Lenders and
Involuntary Acquisitions by Government Entities 59
Policy on the Issuance of EPA Comfort/Status Letters 61
Interim Approaches for Regional Relations with State Voluntary
Cleanup Programs 63
Revised Settlement Policy and Contribution Waiver Language
Regarding Exempt De Micromis Parties 65
Guidance on Enforcement Approaches for Expediting
RCRA Corrective Action 67
Coordination between RCRA Corrective Action and Closure and
CERCLA Site Activities 71
Comfort/Status Letters for RCRA Brownfield Properties 73
-------
Appendices
Appendix A- Related Policies and Guidances 75
Appendix B - Fact Sheets 95
Appendix C-Report on U.S. EPA's Prospective Purchaser Agreements and
Comfort/Status Letters 183
Appendix D -Sample Comfort/Status Letters 189
Appendix E -EPA Brownfield Contacts 199
-------
ince the announcement of the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Brownfields Action Agenda in January
1995, the Brownfields program has empowered states, tribes,
communities, and other stakeholders to work together to assess,
safely clean up and sustainably reuse contaminated property as
well as prevent future brownfields. Through the brownfields
pilot programs, more than $3.5 billion has been leveraged in
public and private cleanups, over 3,000 properties have been
assessed for contamination, and over $2.5 million in loans have
been made for cleanup and reuse. In addition, EPA has entered
into more than 150 prospective purchaser agreements and
issued more than 1,000 comfort letters to facilitate the cleanup
and reuse of property.
The Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) plays a
key role in the success of the program through the development
of tools that clarify and address barriers to timely cleanup and
reuse posed by federal environmental liability. In November
1998, EPA issued The Handbook of Tools for Managing Fed-
eral Superfund Liability Risks at Brownfields and Other Sites.
The handbook provided a compilation of tools and a discussion
of how to use them in evaluating the benefits of reusing a
brownfield property.
EPAs Brownfields program continues to evolve. Until 1998,
brownfields were associated primarily with Superfund liability
and cleanup issues. As more properties were assessed through
the pilot program, stakeholders raised concerns about environ-
mental liabilities under the RCRA (Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act), mirroring the Superfund experience.
This updated edition of the handbook summarizes the tools
available that clarify and address barriers to cleanup and reuse
posed by RCRA. In addition, the handbook also summarizes
the new tools and initiatives that the Agency has undertaken
since 1995. These include the Superfund Redevelopment
-------
Initiative (SRI), USTfields, RCRA reforms, and improvements D
to the prospective purchaser agreement process. The newD
handbook also updates the list of related policies and guidance D
documents and EPA contacts. All of the other tools described D
in the 1998 edition remain unchanged. D
An electronic copy of the handbook may be found atD
www.epa.gov/Compliance/about/offices/osre.html. For addiQ
tional information regarding the handbook, please contactD
Elisabeth Freed at (202) 564-5117. For property-specificD
Superfund or RCRA discussions, please refer to the regional D
contact list provided in Appendix F. D
I want to acknowledge key staff- Elisabeth Freed, LoriD
Boughton, liana Saltzbart, Myron Eng, Shannon Kendall andD
Tessa Hendrickson - who devoted their time and creativity toD
produce this Handbook. We look forward to continuing ourD
progress and commitment to removing the barriers to timely D
cleanup and reuse of all types of contaminated property. D
Barry N. Breen, Director D
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement D
-------
his handbook summarizes the statutory and regulatory
provisions of CERCLA and RCRA, and the policy
and guidance documents most useful in managing environ-
mental cleanup liability risks associated with brownfields and
other sites.
The handbook also summarizes related documents and pro-
vides copies of relevant fact sheets and other documents, and
lists EPA headquarters and regional contacts for cleanup and
reuse issues. Designed for use by parties involved in the
assessment, cleanup, and reuse of brownfields, this handbook
provides a basic description of the purpose, applicability, and
provisions of each tool. To gain a more complete under-
standing of any tool described in this handbook, please refer to
the relevant reference documents listed in Appendix A, search
any of EPAs web sites listed in the Helpful Web Sites box (see
box on page 10), or call the office number listed with the
referenced document. The websites also provide the latest
information and updates.
Before developing a brownfield property, a party should collect
and consider information on past uses and potential contamina-
tion. The party should next identify which level of government
to consult about cleanup and liability protection, if needed.
Most parties will find that they can proceed directly to their
reuse activities. Others may want to pursue private mechanisms
such as indemnification or insurance or work at the state level
and make use of existing state tools (see box on page 14). If the
contamination on the property warrants EPAs attention under
CERCLA or RCRA, the party should first determine if EPA or
the state is taking or plans to take action at the property. After
determining where the property fits in the federal or state
cleanup pipeline, parties should find this handbook helpful in
deciding which tool or tools are most appropriate to help them
manage their federal CERCLA or RCRA liability risks.
-------
Helpful Web Sites
The following web sites
contain additional infor-
mation about issues ad-
dressed in this handbook:
•ODffice of Site Remediation
Enforcement:
www. epa. gov/compliance/
about/offices/osre.html
•CBrownfields:
www.epa.gov/brownfields
•DDffice of Solid Waste:
www.epa.gov/osw
• DSuperfund:
www. epa. gov/superfund
• DSuperfund Redevelopment
Initiative:
www. epa. gov/superfund/
programs/recycle
• CFederal Register:
www. archives .govfederal
_register/index.html
• DCode of Federal Regulations:
www. acce s s. gpo. gov/nara/
cfr
•[U.S. Code:
uscode.house.gov
Both CERCLA and RCRA
are designed to protect human
health and the environment
from the dangers of hazardous
waste. These two programs,
however, take fundamentally
different approaches to ad-
dressing the hazardous waste
problem. The RCRA
programs focus on how
wastes should be managed to
avoid potential threats to
human health and the environ-
ment. CERCLA, on the other
hand, is relevant primarily
when mismanagement has
already occurred.
Many prospective purchasers,
developers, and lenders have
avoided getting involved with
brownfield properties because
they fear that they too might
be held liable under CERCLA
or RCRA someday. The vast
majority of brownfield proper-
ties will never require EPA's
attention under CERCLA,
RCRA, or any other federal
law. Accordingly, parties'
fears of potential liability,
rather than their actual incur-
rence of liability, are the
primary obstacles to the
redevelopment and reuse of
brownfields. EPA hopes that
the remaining sections of this
handbook will assist in elimi-
nating or reducing these fears.
-------
Introduction to Brownfields
In the United States, real property is one of the most valuable
economic assets. While this country puts most real property
into productive use, some properties lie abandoned or idled.
These properties, called "brownfields," may remain unused or
underutilized because of actual contamination from past com-
mercial or industrial use or because people fear the property's
previous use may have left contamination. This fear may result
in relatively clean property remaining idle because parties, who
otherwise would redevelop brownfields, may search out unused
property, or "greenfields," to avoid the costs associated with the
cleanup of contamination.
The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA" or "Agency")
believes that the cleanup of contaminated property, including
brownfields, and the clarification of federal environmental
cleanup liability, are the foundation for sustainable reuse of
previously used property. By fostering the cleanup and
appropriate reuse of brownfields, EPA fulfills its mission to
protect human health and the environment as well as to con-
serve greenfields from development that leads to environ-
mental degradation.
EPA recognizes that some private parties believe federal envi-
ronmental laws and policies have created roadblocks to reusing
property. The federal environmental laws that most affect the
cleanup and reuse of brownfields are CERCLA(often referred
to as Superfund) and RCRA. The cleanup provisions of these
Statutory Definition of "Brownfields"
The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act of 2002 defines a 'brownfield site'
as "real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse
of which may be complicated by the presence or poten-
tial presence of a hazardous waste substance, pollutant,
or contaminant."
11
-------
laws require EPA to focus its
attention first on cleaning up
the nation's most toxic waste
sites in order to protect human
health and the environment.
Under CERCLA or RCRA,
the current owner or operator
of a contaminated property
may be held responsible for
the cleanup. Although
potential liability is a valid
and serious concern for
landowners, it is important to
keep this concern within
context. For example, in 1995,
the Office of Technology
Assessment estimated that
450,000 brownfields existed
nationwide. A more recent
report from the January 2000
U.S. Conference of Mayors
provides a national tally of
600,000. Only about 8% of
all brownfields are considered
for Superfund's National
Priorities List (NPL) (a list of
the nation's worst hazardous
waste sites) with less than 1%
actually placed. Therefore, at
least 99% of all the potential
brownfield properties across
the country will not require
federal EPA action. Although
the existence and applicabil-
ity of federal environmental
cleanup laws and regula-
The Local Nature
of Reuse Projects
By its very nature, property
reuse is a local activity.
Parties with the greatest
stake in the economic and
environmental benefits of a
reuse project are the
owner(s), surrounding
property owners, local citi-
zens, developer(s), local
government, and state gov-
ernment. Because of their
stake in the project, these
parties are generally in the
best position to plan, imple-
ment, and oversee required
cleanup and reuse activities.
There are many issues that
affect property reuse;
federal environmental
cleanup liability is only
one. After a party has a
clear understanding of its
federal environmental
cleanup liability risks and
the ways it can minimize
them, that party may work
primarily or exclusively
with state government,
local government, and
community interests in ad-
dressing non-federal issues
and planning and imple-
menting its reuse project.
-------
tions could have an impact
on development, the reality
is that EPA has taken action
at very few brownfield
properties.
The relatively small number
of these brownfield sites on
the NPL is just one fact
illustrating that federal envi-
ronmental cleanup liability
risks associated with
brownfields are not nearly as
large as one might imagine.
Even for risks that could be
significant, both Congress and
EPA have developed mecha-
nisms that can help parties
minimize and manage the
risks of reusing brownfields.
The fact that private parties,
states, tribes, municipalities,
communities, and federal
agencies collaborate to effec-
tively clean up and reuse
property indicates that these
tools are working. Evidence
of growth and interest in
brownfields reuse is demon-
strated by several initiatives
EPA has recently undertaken.
Superfund Redevelopment
Initiative (SRI), RCRA
Brownfields Prevention
Initiative, and USTfields are
three such efforts to more
broadly integrate brownfields
approaches into remedial
cleanup programs.
New Initiatives
Superfund
Redevelopment Initiative
In an effort to help communi-
ties return Superfund sites to
productive use, EPA launched
SRI. The goal of SRI is to
make sure that the Agency
and its partners have the
necessary tools to fully ex-
plore and implement land use
opportunities at every site.
This coordinated program
uses a wide variety of tools,
such as facilitation services,
that bring liable parties,
community groups, and local
government leaders together
to determine the future use of
a Superfund site once it is
clean. The site-specific nature
of Superfund remedy deci-
sions allow EPA regional staff
to work with stakeholders to
determine the best cleanup
approach to ensure successful
reuse.
A cornerstone of SRI is the
pilot program. Since the
summer of 1999, EPA an-
-------
nounced 50 pilots that would SRI has created a climate
receive national recognition where liable parties, local
through the development of governments, communities,
reuse plans; use of local developers, and others are
government and Agency rethinking the value of
cooperative agreements; Superfund sites. They are
workshops that bring together now more likely to consider
pilot participants to exchange these sites for a variety of new
information and share ideas; uses - from golf courses and
and a partnership conference parks to national retail stores
where pilot participants meet and transportation hubs. To
with private organizations to date, 260 NPL sites are now,
develop alliances.
Private Tools
Although not addressed in this handbook, various private
tools can be used to manage environmental liability risks
associated with brownfields and other properties. These
tools may include the following:
•^Indemnification Provisions - These are private contractual
mechanisms in which one party promises to shield another from
liability. Indemnification provisions provide prospective buyers,
lenders, insurers, and developers with a means of assigning
responsibility for cleanup costs, and encourage negotiations
between private parties without government involvement.
• ^Environmental Insurance Policies - The insurance industry offers
products intended to allocate and minimize liability exposures
among parties involved in brownfields redevelopment. These
products include cost cap, pollution legal liability, and secured
creditor policies. Insurance products may serve as a tool to manage
environmental liability risks, however, many factors affect their
utility including the types of coverage available, the dollar limits
on claims, the policy time limits, site assessment requirements,
and costs for available products. Parties involved in brownfields
redevelopment considering environmental insurance should always
secure the assistance of skilled brokers and lawyers to help select
appropriate coverage.
-------
or soon will be, in reuse; on-
site businesses employ over
15,000 people with an annual
income of half a billion
dollars; and over 60,000 acres
have some ecological or
recreational reuse.
RCRA Brownfields
Prevention Initiative
The first brownfields assess-
ment pilots highlighted the
need to address environmental
issues beyond the Superfund
context. In June 1998, EPA
announced the RCRA
Brownfields Prevention
Initiative. The objective of
the Initiative is to prevent
future Superfund sites or
brownfields by using
brownfields tools to clean up
and provide long-term sus-
tainable reuse of RCRA
facilities. Through the Initia-
tive, EPA is exploring oppor-
tunities within the existing
statutory and regulatory
framework to facilitate the
reuse of RCRA sites. The
goal is to foster a
"brownfields" culture in
RCRA cleanup programs by
working together across EPA,
states, tribes, industry, and
communities to tap the rede-
velopment potential of RCRA
sites. To date, the Initiative
components include outreach
workshops; industry and
community stakeholder
dialogue sessions to identify
reuse impediments;
informational documents; and,
nine pilots.
USTfields Initiative
The Office of Underground
Storage Tanks (OUST) de-
fines USTfields as "aban-
doned or underused industrial
and commercial properties
where redevelopment is
complicated by real or per-
ceived environmental con-
tamination from federally-
regulated underground storage
tanks (USTs)." Of the esti-
mated 450,000 to 600,000
brownfields sites in the United
States, approximately 100,000
to 200,000 contain abandoned
USTs or are impacted by
petroleum tank leaks. The
Brownfields program, how-
ever, is unable to devote funds
toward USTfields because
CERCLA prohibits the use of
Trust Fund money on most
petroleum sites.
The USTfields Initiative plans
to use the same kind of prob-
-------
lem-solving methods implemented by the Brownfields pro-
gram. This new program will provide 50 grants to states and
tribes for community pilot projects. EPA will allot each pilot up
to $100,000 to assess and/or clean up sites to ready them for
reuse. The pilots are intended to supplement or coordinate with
existing EPA cleanup and redevelopment pilots, such as
brownfields assessment pilots. The USTfields pilots must
involve corrective action with respect to petroleum releases
from underground storage tanks and address the future reuse of
sites. OUST believes the Initiative will demonstrate how to
effectively assess and clean up petroleum-impacted sites and
foster reuse using limited resources.
New Legislation
The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revital-
ization Act, PL. 107-118 ("SBLRBRA"or "the Act") signed
into law by the President on January 11, 2002, creates new
exemptions from Superfund liability, authorizes brownfields
revitalization funding, and provides assistance to state and local
site clean-up programs.
The SBLRBRA consists of two titles. Title I addresses liability
exemptions for parties who generate and transport small quanti-
ties of hazardous substances and certain generators of munici-
pal solid waste. Title I also provides for expedited settlements
with certain parties that can demonstrate a limited or inability
to pay their share of response costs. The Title II amendments
focus on facilitating the responsible cleanup and re-use of
contaminated properties. The amendments provide specific
statutory authority for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA or Agency) brownfields program and authorize
appropriations to fund brownfields grants and grants for state
and tribal response programs. Title II also provides conditional
exemptions from CERCLA liability for contiguous property
-------
clarifies the pre-existing innocent landowner defense. Finally,
the amendments place certain limits on EPA's use of its en-
forcement and cost recovery authorities at low-risk sites where
a person is conducting a response action in compliance with a
state program.
The complete text of SBLRBRA may be found at http://
www.epa.gov/brownfields/html-doc/hr2869.htm. A summary
of SBLRBRA may be found at http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/
bf/html-doc/2869sum.htm. A summary of the liability provi-
sions may be found in Appendix B.
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
18
-------
As a result of several well-publicized hazardous waste disposal
disasters in the 1970's, Congress passed the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) in 1980. CERCLA, also known as Superfund,
authorizes EPA to respond to environmental emergencies
involving hazardous wastes or pollutants and contaminants,
initiate investigations and cleanups, and take enforcement
action against responsible parties. To provide money for
these activities, Congress established a trust fund that was
financed by taxes on the manufacture and import of chemicals
and petroleum.
EPA may exercise its response authority through removal or
remedial actions. Removal actions are implemented when
there is an immediate threat to human health and the environ-
ment. EPA has used removal actions to avert fires and explo-
sions, prevent exposure to acute toxicity, and protect drinking
water supplies. Removal actions typically take less than
twelve months to implement and cost less than two million
dollars. Remedial actions address long-term threats to human
health and the environment caused by more persistent contami-
nation sources. Consequently, they usually take much longer
to complete and cost considerably more to implement than
removal actions.
Congress designed CERCLA to ensure that those who caused
the pollution, rather than the general public, pay for the
cleanup. In order to be held liable for the costs or performance
of cleanup under CERCLA, a party must fall within one of four
categories found in CERCLA section 107(a) (see box). Using
CERCLA's polluter pays liability scheme, EPA has ensured the
successful cleanup of many of the nation's worst hazardous
waste sites by those responsible for the contamination - the
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs).
-------
Despite its broad categories of
liable parties, CERCLA also
provides various forms of
liability protection which
extend to all lawsuits brought
under CERCLA, whether
initiated by EPA or by a
private party. A party who
satisfies the statutory provi-
sions can avoid lawsuits
brought by EPA seeking
cleanup costs or a response
action. Additionally, the party
would be protected from third
parties who are trying to
recoup money they expended
in cleaning up a site.
CERCLA's Four
Liability Categories
• Current owner or operator
of the facility;
• Owner or operator of the
facility at the time of
disposal of hazardous
substances;
• Person who generated or
arranged for the disposal
or treatment of hazardous
substances; or
• Transporter of the
hazardous substances, if
this person selected the
disposal or treatment site.
CERCLA's Liability Scheme
Under CERCLA, liability for cleanup is strict and joint
and several, as well as retroactive. The implications of
these features are as follows:
• Strict - A party may be held liable even if it did not act negligently
or in bad faith.
• Joint and several - If two or more parties are responsible for the
contamination at a site any one or more of the parties may be held
liable for the entire cost of the cleanup, unless a party can show
that the injury or harm at the site is divisible.
• Retroactive - A party may be held liable even if the hazardous
substance disposal occurred before CERCLA was enacted in 1980.
-------
The SBLRBRA creates two new conditional exemptions from
CERCLA "owner/operator" liability for contiguous property
owners and bona fide prospective purchasers (BFPP). Again,
these exemptions embody aspects of pre-existing EPA policies.
The new law also modified the existing innocent landowner
defense by clarifying the meaning of "all appropriate
inquiries." All three provisions embody some common
elements for persons to maintain non-liable status while also
including unique provisions and requirements.
Section 221 of the Act adds new § 107(q) which exempts from
owner or operator liability persons that own land contaminated
solely by a release from contiguous, or similarly situated
property owned by someone else. In the case of a contiguous
property owner, the owner must not have known or had reason
to know of the contamination at the time of purchase and must
not have caused or contributed to the contamination. The
section also modifies what constitutes appropriate care/
reasonable steps for contiguous property owners by clarifying
that the requirement does not obligate a contiguous property
owner to conduct groundwater investigations or remediate
groundwater contamination except in accordance with EPAs
pre-existing policy.
The new law generally provides greater protections for
contiguous property owners than EPAs existing policy on
owners of contaminated aquifers. The new law does not limit
-------
the exemption to properties contaminated by groundwater but
may also apply to soil contamination resulting from
neighboring properties. The Act also grants EPA the authority
to provide assurances that the Agency will not take action
against a person and protection from third party suits. As in
EPAs Contaminated Aquifer Policy, a person who purchases
with knowledge of the contamination cannot claim the
exemption; however, the new law notes that a party who does
not qualify for the exemption for this reason may still qualify
as a BFPP
The most notable aspect of the BFPP provision is that for the
first time Congress has limited the CERCLA liability of a party
who purchases real property with knowledge of the
contamination. The caveats to this exemption, in addition to
the common elements, include a requirement that all disposal
takes place prior to the date of purchase, that the person does
not impede a response action, and that the property may be
subject to a "windfall lien". The windfall lien provision
provides for a lien on the property of a BFPP if EPA has
unrecovered response costs and the response action increased
the fair market value of the property. The lien arises as of the
date the response cost was incurred and the amount cannot
exceed the increase in fair market value attributed to the
response action.
EPAs policy on prospective purchaser agreements (PPAs)
proved one of the most successful and high profile
administrative liability reforms prior to enactment of the new
law. Immediately after passage, EPA was asked repeatedly
whether the Agency would continue to issue PPAs. Many
people suggested that EPA needs to continue the practice,
despite the fact that the legislation provides an exemption and
confronts an ongoing complaint, from some of these same
people, that EPA should not be involved in private real estate
transactions.
-------
To address this issue, on May 31, 2002, EPA's Office of Site
Remediation Enforcement issued new guidance entitled Bona
Fide Prospective Purchasers and the New Amendments to
CERCLA (also found at http://epa.gov/compliance/resources/
policies/cleanup/superfund/bonf-pp-cercla-mem.pdf). This
guidance states that "EPA believes that, in most cases, the
Brownfields Amendments make PPAs from the federal
government unnecessary." Therefore, in the majority of cases
EPA intends for the law to be self-implementing. However, the
guidance does recognize the following two exceptions where
EPA may enter into an agreement with the purchaser: 1) there
is likely to be a significant windfall lien needing resolution;
and 2) the transaction will provide significant public benefits
and a PPA is needed to ensure the transaction will take place.
The contiguous property owner exemption, the definition of
what constitutes a BFPP, and the innocent landowner defense
found in CERCLA Section 107(b)(3) and the definition of
"contractual relationship" in Section 101(35), all contain the
following common obligations which persons seeking these
exemptions must meet:
• conduct "all appropriate inquiry" prior to purchase of the
property;
• not be potentially liable or affiliated with any person
potentially liable;
• exercise appropriate care by taking reasonable steps to "stop
any continuing release; prevent any threatened future
release; and prevent or limit any human, environmental, or
natural resource exposure to any previously released
hazardous substance;"
• provide full cooperation, assistance, and access to persons
undertaking a response action or natural resource
restoration;
• comply with all governmental information requests
• comply with land use restrictions and not impede the
performance of institutional controls; and
• provide all legally required notices regarding releases of
hazardous substances
-------
At time of publication, EPA is considering whether to produce
general guidance on these "common elements." EPA has heard
from stakeholders that they need clarification of these
requirements to ensure they take appropriate actions to avoid
liability. EPA would like to ensure national consistency and
provide direction where needed. However, requirements such
as what constitutes appropriate care/reasonable steps will
greatly depend on site specific circumstances.
Changes to CERCLA Section 101(35)(B) now define "all
appropriate inquiries" for purposes of all three provisions.
First, the Act directs EPA to promulgate regulations based on
statutory criteria within two years of date of enactment,
establishing standards for all appropriate inquiry. For
purchases prior to issuance of these regulations, the Act utilizes
two standards based on date of purchase. For purchases prior
to May 31, 1997, the Act sets forth a narrative standard,
directing courts to consider such factors as, inter alia,
specialized knowledge of the defendant, the obviousness of the
contamination, and relationship of purchase price to property
value. For purchases after May 31, 1997, the Act states that
procedures set forth in the American Society for Testing and
Materials, Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessment: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process,
Standard El527-97 shall satisfy the requirement. The section
also provides that for purchasers of property for residential use
or similar use by a nongovernmental or noncommercial entity a
facility inspection and title search shall fulfill the requirements.
-------
Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
Secured Creditor Exemption
CERCLA Section 101(20)(A) contains a secured creditor
exemption that eliminates owner/operator liability for lenders
who hold indicia of ownership in a CERCLA facility primarily
to protect their security interest in that facility, provided they
do not participate in the management of the facility.
Before 1996, CERCLA did not define the key terms used in
this provision. As a result, lenders often hesitated to loan
money to owners and developers of contaminated property for
fear of exposing themselves to potential CERCLA liability. In
1992, EPA issued the "CERCLA Lender Liability Rule" to
clarify the secured creditor exemption. After the Rule was
invalidated by a court in 1994, Congress incorporated many
sections of the Rule into the Asset Conservation, Lender Liabil-
ity, and Deposit Insurance Protection Act of 1996. That Act
amended CERCLAs secured creditor exemption to clarify the
situations in which lenders will and will not be protected from
CERCLA liability. The amended exemption appears at
CERCLA Section 101(20)(E)-(G).
Other Considerations
The 1996 amendment also protects lenders from contribution
actions and government enforcement actions. Regardless of
CERCLA's secured creditor exemption from owner/operator
liability, a lender may be liable under CERCLA as a generator
or transporter if it meets the requirements outlined in CERCLA
Section 107 (a)(3) or (4). In June 1997, EPA issued a lender
policy that further clarifies the liability of lenders under
CERCLA (see page 59). Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
25
-------
"Participation in Management" Defined
A lender "participates in manage- • Provides financial or other
ment" (and will not qualify for the advice in an effort to prevent or
exemption) if the lender: cure default; and,
Restructures or renegotiates the
terms of the security interest;
provided the actions do not rise
to the level of participating in
management.
• Exercises decision-making
control over environmental
compliance related to the
facility, and in doing so,
undertakes responsibility for
hazardous substance handling
or disposal practices; or
• Exercises control at a level
similar to that of a manager of
the facility, and in doing so,
assumes or manifests
responsibility with respect to
1. Day-to-day decision-
making on environmental
compliance, or
2. All, or substantially all, of
the operational (as opposed
to financial or
administrative) functions of
the facility other than
environmental compliance.
The term "participate in manage-
ment" does not include certain
activities such as when the lender:
• Inspects the facility;
• Requiries a response action or
other lawful means to address
a release or threatened release;
• Conducts a response action
under CERCLA section
107(d)(l) orunderthe direction
of an on-scene coordinator;
After foreclosure, a lender who did
not participate in management
prior to foreclosure is not an
"owner or operator" if the lender:
• Sells, releases (in the case of a
lease finance transaction), or
liquidates the facility;
• Maintains business activities or
winds up operations;
• Undertakes a response action
under CERCLA section
107(d)(l) orunderthe direction
of an on-scene coordinator; or,
• Takes any other measure to
preserve, protect, or prepare the
facility for sale or disposition;
provided the lender seeks to
divest itself of the facility
at the earliest practicable,
commercially reasonable time,
on commercially reasonable
terms. EPA considers this test
to be met if the lender, within
12 months after foreclosure,
lists the property with a broker
or advertises it for sale in an
appropriate publication.
-------
A "fiduciary" is a person who acts for the benefit of another
party. Common examples include trustees, executors, and
administrators. CERCLA Section 107(n), added by the Asset
Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance Protec-
tion Act of 1996, protects fiduciaries from personal liability in
certain situations, provides a liability limit for those fiduciaries
who are found liable, and describes situations in which fiducia-
ries will and will not receive this statutory protection.
CERCLA's fiduciary provision, however, does not protect the
assets of the trust or estate administered by the fiduciary.
-------
Fiduciary Liability
For actions taken in a fi-
duciary capacity, liability
under any CERCLA pro-
vision is limited to assets
held in the fiduciary ca-
pacity. A fiduciary will
not be liable in its per-
sonal capacity for certain
actions such as:
• Undertaking or requiring
another person to undertake
any lawful means of
addressing a hazardous
substance;
• Enforcing environmental
compliance terms of the
fiduciary agreement; or
• Administering a facility that
was contaminated before
the fiduciary relationship
began.
The liability limitation
and "safe harbor" de-
scribed above do not limit
the liability of a fiduciary
whose negligence causes
or contributes to a release
or threatened release.
The term "fiduciary"
means a person acting for
the benefit of another
party as a bona fide
trustee, executor, or ad-
ministrator, among other
things. It does not include
a person who:
• Acts as a fiduciary with
respect to a for-profit trust or
other for-profit fiduciary
estate, unless the trust or
estate was created:
0 Because of the incapacity
of a natural person, or
0 As part of, or to facilitate,
an estate plan.
• Acquires ownership or
control of a facility for the
purpose of avoiding liability
of that person or another
person.
Nothing in the fiduciary
subsection applies to a
person who:
• Acts in a beneficiary or non-
fiduciary capacity, directly or
indirectly, and benefits from
the trust or fiduciary
relationship; or
• Is a beneficiary and fiduciary
with respect to the same
fiduciary estate and, as a
fiduciary, receives benefits
exceeding customary or
reasonable compensation.
-------
Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
Protection of Government Entities
That Acquire Property Involuntarily
CERCLA sections 101(20)(D) and 101(35)(A) protect federal,
state, and local government entities from owner/operator
liability if they involuntarily acquire contaminated property
while performing their governmental duties. If a unit of state
or local government makes an involuntary acquisition, it is
exempt from owner/operator liability under CERCLA. Addi-
tionally, a state, local, or federal government entity that makes
an involuntary acquisition will have a third-party defense to
owner/operator liability under CERCLA if:
The contamination occurred before the government entity acquired the
property;
The government entity exercised due care with respect to the
contamination (e.g., did not cause, contribute to, or exacerbate the
contamination); and
The government entity took precautions against certain acts of the party
that caused the contamination and against the consequences of those
acts.
Regulations set forth at 40 CFR 300.1105, and validated by
the 1996 Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit
Insurance Protection Act, provide some examples of involun-
tary acquisitions.
As the following examples indicate, a government entity need
not act completely passive in order to acquire property involun-
tarily. Often government entities must take some sort of
discretionary, volitional action before they can acquire property
following circumstances such as abandonment, bankruptcy, or
tax delinquency. In these cases, the "involuntary" status of the
acquisition is not jeopardized.
29
-------
Acceptable Involuntary Acquisitions
EPA considers an acquisition to be "involuntary" if the
government's interest in, and ultimate ownership of, the prop-
erty exists only because the conduct of a non-governmental
party gives rise to the government's legal right to control or
take title to the property.
Involuntary acquisitions by government entities include the
following:
• Acquisitions made by a government entity functioning as a sovereign
(such as acquisitions following abandonment or tax delinquency);
• Acquisitions made by a government entity acting as a conservator or
receiver pursuant to a clear and direct statutory mandate or regulatory
authority (such as acquisitions of the security interests or properties
of failed private lending or depository institutions);
• Acquisitions made by a government entity through foreclosure and
its equivalents while administering a governmental loan, loan
guarantee, or loan insurance program; and
• Acquisitions made by a government entity pursuant to seizure or
forfeiture authority.
Other Considerations
A government entity will not have a CERCLA liability exemp-
tion or defense if it has caused or contributed to the release or
threatened release of contamination. As a result, acquiring
property involuntarily does not unconditionally or permanently
insulate a government entity from CERCLA liability. Fur-
thermore, the liability exemption and defense described above
do not shield government entities from liability as generators or
transporters of hazardous substances under CERCLA section
107(a)(3)or(4).
In June 1997, EPA issued a policy that further clarifies the
CERCLA liability of government entities that involuntarily
acquire property (see page 59 and fact sheet on page 125).
-------
Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
De Minimis Waste Contributor
Settlements , Ability to Pay, and the
De Micromis Exemption
At a CERCLA site, some parties may have contributed only
minimal amounts of hazardous substances compared to the
amounts contributed by other parties. Under CERCLA section
122(g), these contributors of small amounts may enter into de
minimis waste contributor settlements with EPA. Such a
settlement provides the waste contributor with a covenant not
to sue and contribution protection from the United States. As a
result, the settling party is protected from legal actions brought
by EPA or other parties at the site. In exchange for the settle-
ment, the de minimis party agrees to provide funds, based on
its share of total waste contribution, toward cleanup, or to
undertake some of the actual work.
Section 102(b) of SBLRBRA amended Section 122(g) of
CERCLA and grants EPA the authority to enter into expedited
settlements with persons who demonstrate an inability or
limited ability to pay response costs. The Act directs EPA to
consider whether the person can pay response costs and still
maintain basic business operations, which includes consider-
ation of financial condition and ability to raise revenues. The
SBLRBRA also requires EPA to provide a written determina-
tion of ineligibility to a potentially responsible party that
requests a settlement under any provision in Sectionl22(g).
Any determination regarding eligibility is not subject to judi-
cial review.
Section 102(a) of SBLRBRA also added new §107(o) to
CERCLA and exempts generators and transporters of de
micromis quantities of hazardous substances from response
31
-------
cost liability.1 The new law requires a person seeking the
exemption to demonstrate that "the total amount of the material
containing hazardous substances they contributed was less than
110 gallons of liquid materials and 200 pounds of solid
materials" and that "all or part of disposal, treatment, or
transport occurred before April 1,2001." This exemption is
subject to the following exceptions: 1) if the materials
contribute significantly, either on their own or in the aggregate,
to the cost of the response action or natural resource to the cost
of the response action or natural resource restoration; 2) if the
person fails to comply with an information request; 3) if the
person impedes a response action or natural resource
restoration; or 4) if the person has been convicted of a criminal
violation for conduct to which the exemption would apply.
The Act provides significant protection for generators and
transporters of de micromis amounts of hazardous substances
at NPL sites where disposal, treatment or transport occurred
after April 1, 2001. While EPA is not directed to provide
contribution protection to these parties, the Act includes
substantial disincentives for litigation by private party
plaintiffs. First, the exemption shifts the burden of proof to
private party plaintiffs to show that the exemption does not
apply. Second, the new law makes private party plaintiffs liable
for the defendant's costs and fees if a court finds the defendant
to be exempt under this provision. These provisions should
force potentially responsible parties seeking contribution for
response costs to exercise greater diligence in respect to whom
they drag into court.
The complete text of SBLRBRAmay be found at http://
www.epa.gov/brownfields/html-doc/hr2869.htm
§ 102(a), 115 Stat. 2356 (to be codified at 42 U.S.C. § 9607(o))(subsequent
citations are to 42 U.S.C.).
-------
The Superfund law includes a liability exemption for service
station dealers who accept used oil for recycling. The
exemption is meant to encourage service station dealers to
accept used motor oil for recycling from do-it-yourself
recyclers, i.e., people who change the oil in their own cars,
trucks, and appliances. A dealer may be eligible for the
exemption if the recycled oil is not mixed with any other
hazardous substance and is managed in compliance with Solid
Waste Disposal Act regulations.
As long as a small quantity of used oil was removed from the
engine of a "light duty motor vehicle" or house appliances by
the owner, and the owner presents it to the dealer for delivery
to an oil recycling facility, the dealer can presume that the used
oil is not mixed with other hazardous substances. The mixing
of the used oil with other hazardous substances is what would
trigger Superfund liability.
Superfund defines a service station dealer as persons who own
or operate retail establishments that sell, repair, or service
motor vehicles and accept recycled oil from light vehicle and
household appliance owners for recycling.
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
34
-------
Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
Municipal Solid Waste
Section 102(a) o f SBLRBRA also added §107(p) to CERCLA
which exempts certain generators of municipal solid waste
(MSW) from Superfund response cost liability at NPL sites.
The persons covered by this exemption are owners, operators,
and lessees of residential property; small businesses; and
certain non-profit organizations. This exemption is subject to
all but one of the same exceptions as found in the de micromis
exemption. The new law defines MSW in the following two
ways: 1) as waste generated by a household; and 2) as waste
generated by a commercial, industrial, or institutional entity
which is essentially the same as waste generated by a
household, is collected as part of normal MSW collection, and
contains no greater amounts of hazardous substances than that
contained in the waste of a typical single family household.
Similar to the de micromis exemption, the MSW exemption has
burden of proof and fee shifting provisions to discourage
litigation against exempt parties. However, the burden of proof
provision in the MSW exemption is a bit more complicated
because it differs based on time of disposal and applies in some
cases to both private and governmental plaintiffs. Furthermore,
the statute sets forth a complete bar to private party actions
against owners, operators, or lessees of residential property
which generated MSW. As with the de micromis exemption,
the cost and fee shifting provision only applies to
nongovernmental entities.
35
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
36
-------
In addition to the contiguous property owner, bona fide
prospective purchaser, and innocent landowner provisions, Title
II for the first time provides explicit statutory authority for
EPA's brownfields program. Title II also authorizes EPA to
provide grants to states and tribes to develop response
programs. While this article focuses on the liability provisions
these aspects of the new law are certainly worth mentioning.
Generally, brownfields are considered properties which have
real or perceived contamination that discourages redevelopment
or reuse due to the potential liability of those persons
associated with the site. Since 1995, EPA has maintained a
successful brownfields program aimed at promoting the
cleanup and redevelopment of brownfield properties. The
brownfields program has provided numerous grants and assistance
to states and communities for brownfields assessments,
revolving loan funds for brownfields cleanup, and job training
and development. The program has also worked to identify
"Showcase Communities" that serve as national models for
successful brownfields assessments, cleanups, and
redevelopment.
The new law recognizes EPA's efforts and expands the existing
program. The Act authorizes annual appropriations of $200
million for the brownfields grant program for fiscal years 2002
through 2006. EPA will use appropriations to provide brownfield
characterization and assessment grants, to capitalize revolving
loan funds, and for the first time to provide direct grants for
brownfields cleanup. The Act also provides an
-------
expanded list of persons eligible for these funds that include
states, local governments, state chartered redevelopment
agencies, tribes, land clearance authorities, and for certain
funds nonprofits and other private entities. The Act provides
ranking criteria for grant distribution and directs EPA to
provide guidance for grant applicants. EPA published guidance
in the Federal Register on October 24, 2002 (Volume 67,
Number 207, pp. 65348-65350) available on line at http://
www.epa.gov/fedreg. Fact sheets titled "Eligibility for
Brownfields Funding" and "Summary of Brownfields Grant
Guidelines" may be found in Appendix B.
Title II also authorizes $50 million annually from 2002 through
2006 to provide assistance for state and tribal response
programs, to capitalize a revolving loan fund for brownfield
remediation, or purchase insurance or create a risk sharing
pool, an indemnity pool, or insurance mechanism to help fund
response actions. To receive grants state and tribal programs
must meet or be working towards several criteria or the state or
tribe must have a memorandum of agreement for voluntary
response programs with EPA. States receiving funds must also
maintain and update annually a public record of sites going
through a state's response program.
-------
Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
Limitations on the EPACERCLA
Enforcement and Cost Recovery
Authority
Section 231 of SBLRBRA amends CERCLA by adding a new
Section 128. Section 128(b) sets forth limitations on EPA's
enforcement authority under Section 106(a) and cost recovery
authority under Section 107(a). These limitations apply to
actions against persons who have conducted or are conducting
response actions at "eligible response sites" in compliance with
a "State program that specifically governs response actions for
the protection of public health and the environment." The
limitations only apply to response actions commenced after
February 15, 2001 and in states that maintain a public record of
sites being addressed under a state program in the upcoming
year and those addressed in the preceding year. Additionally,
these limitations are subject to specified exceptions.
The definition of an "eligible response site" is found in new
CERCLA Section 101(41). The definition includes
"brownfield sites" as defined in Section 101(39)(A) and (B).
The definition of a brownfield site is very broad in that it
essentially captures any real property with real or perceived
contamination and, generally, excludes facilities:
• subject to a planned or ongoing CERCLA removal;
listed or proposed for listing on the national priorities list;
• subject to a unilateral administrative order, court order.
administrativeorder on consent, or consent decree under
CERCLA;
• subject of a unilateral administrative order, court order.
administrative order on consent, consent decree, or permit under
the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
Section 6901 et seq.), the Clean Water Act (CWA, 33 U.S.C.
Section 1251 et seq.), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA.
15 U.S.C. Section 2601 et seq.), or the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA, 42 U.S.C. Section 300f et seq.);
39
-------
subject to corrective action under RCRA §§ 3004(u) or 3008(h),
to which a corrective action permit or order has been issued or
modified requiring the implementation of corrective measures;
• a land disposal unit with closure notification submitted and a
closure plan or permit;on land subject to the custody, jurisdiction,
or Ccontrol of a department, agency, or instrumentality of the
United States, except for land held in trust by the United States for
an Indian Tribe;
• a portion of a facility contaminated by PCBs subject to
remediation under TSCA; or
• a portion of a facility receiving assistance from the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund (LUST Fund sites).
For purposes of the definition of an eligible response site,
LUST Fund sites are included. EPA may include sites
excluded under the fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth bullets on a
site-by-site basis. The definition of eligible response site
contains an additional exclusion for sites at which EPA has
conducted a PA or SI and after consulting with the State has
determined that the site achieves a preliminary score sufficient
for, or otherwise qualifies for, listing on the NPL.
The limitations on EPA's authority in Section 128(b)(l) are
subject to a number of statutory exceptions. EPA is not
prohibited from taking action if the state requests EPA
assistance; contamination has migrated across state lines or
onto federal property; after considering response actions
already taken, a release or threatened release poses an
imminent and substantial endangerment requiring additional
response actions; or new information indicates that conditions
or contamination at the site may present a threat. If EPA
intends to take an action that may be prohibited under §
128(b)(l), it must notify the state and wait forty-eight hours for
a reply, unless one of these exceptions applies, in which case
EPA must still notify the state but may act immediately.
Additionally, the new law does not prohibit EPA from seeking
to recover costs incurred prior to
-------
date of enactment or during a period during which the
limitations did not apply.
EPA has decided not to issue guidance on these new limits on
EPA authority. Congress provided a fairly detailed statutory
structure. Also, this provision appears to embody EPA's
current practice of generally not getting involved at sites being
cleaned up under a state program. Some EPA regional
personnel have communicated with their respective states
regarding how they anticipate handling the notification
requirements and state requests for assistance, if necessary.
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
42
-------
Congress enacted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) in 1976 to protect human health and the environment
from the potential hazards of waste disposal; to conserve
energy and natural resources; to reduce the amount of waste
generated; and to ensure that wastes are managed in an envi-
ronmentally sound manner. RCRA is actually a combination of
the first federal solid waste statutes with subsequent amend-
ments to address hazardous waste and underground storage
tanks (USTs). These three distinct yet interrelated programs
exist as part of RCRA. Subtitle D is the solid waste program
and its focus is on the management of household garbage and
non-hazardous industrial solid waste. Subtitle C is the hazard-
ous waste program and its focus is on the management of
hazardous waste from the time it is generated until its ultimate
disposal. Subtitle I is the underground storage tank program
and its mission is to prevent and clean up releases of petroleum
or hazardous substances from tanks.
States are an integral part of all three of RCRA's programs.
The states oversee most of the Subtitle D solid waste program
whereby they issue permits and ensure compliance with its
requirements. "Under Subtitle C, EPA reviews state programs
that consist of requirements for the generation, transportation,
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes for
facilities within that state. If the state program is acceptable,
EPA authorizes that state to administer the state program in
lieu of the federal program and facilities must then comply
with the authorized state requirements rather than the corre-
sponding federal requirements. However, after authorization,
both the state and EPA have the authority to enforce those
requirements."
Past and present activities at RCRA facilities have sometimes
resulted in releases of hazardous wastes into the soil, ground
-------
water, surface water, and air.
Subtitle C of RCRA requires
the investigation and cleanup
of these hazardous waste
releases at RCRA facilities.
This program is known as
corrective action. The
facilities that fall under the
corrective action program
are generally active ones that
are permitted or are seeking
a permit to treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous waste.
As a condition of the operat-
ing permit, owners/operators
are required to clean up
hazardous wastes that are or
have been released through
current or past activities. It
is, therefore, usually the
current owner and operator
of a facility that is held re-
sponsible for cleaning up
any contamination. However,
other parties may be held
responsible under certain
conditions.
RCRA Cleanup Reforms
In order to expedite the
cleanup at hazardous waste
sites regulated by RCRA,
EPA launched a set of admin-
istrative reforms in 1999 and
2001, known as the RCRA
Cleanup Reforms. EPA
developed the reforms as a
comprehensive way to address
the key impediments to
cleanups, maximize program
flexibility, and spur progress
toward a set of ambitious
national cleanup goals. The
reforms include methods to
enhance public access to
cleanup information and
improve opportunity for
public involvement in the
cleanup process; focus the
program more effectively on
achievement of environmental
results; pilot innovative
approaches; and capitalize on
the redevelopment potential of
RCRA facilities to expedite
cleanup. (See Appendix B)
The RCRA Corrective Action enforcement program
requires owners and operators of RCRA facilities to:
• conduct investigations
• conduct a thorough cleanup of the hazardous release
• monitor the cleanup to make sure it complies with applicable
state and federal requirements
-------
Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
Underground Storage Tanks -
Lender Liability Rule
(40 CFR Parts 280 and 281)
September?, 1995
Subtitle I of RCRA contains a "security interest exemption"
that provides secured creditors ("lenders") an explicit statutory
exemption from corrective action for releases from petroleum
USTs. Because the statute is unclear about the scope of the
exemption coverage, EPA issued the UST Lender Liability
Rule which specifies the conditions under which certain se-
cured lenders may be exempted.
Both prior to and after foreclosure of a facility, a lender is
eligible for an exemption from compliance with all Subtitle
I requirements as an UST "owner" and "operator" if the
lender: 1) holds an ownership interest in an UST, or in a prop-
erty in which the UST is located, to protect its security interest
(a lender typically holds property as collateral as part of the
loan transaction); 2) does not engage in petroleum production,
refining, and marketing; and 3) does not participate in the
management or operation of the UST. A lender also must
empty its UST(s) within 60 days after foreclosure and either
temporarily or permanently close the UST(s) unless there
is a current operator at the site who can comply with UST
regulations.
45
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
46
-------
Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
Standards Applicable to Owners
and Operators of Closed and
Closing Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities: Post-
Closure Permit Requirements and
Closure Process
(40 CFR Parts 264, 265, 270, and 271)
October 22, 1998
Under Subtitle C of RCRA, an owner/operator is required to
obtain a permit to operate a hazardous waste treatment, storage,
or disposal facility (TSDF). RCRA regulations specify the
requirements that must be met when closing hazardous waste
land disposal units ("units"). There are two ways to close units
under RCRA. The units may either be clean closed by removal
or decontamination of waste or they may be closed by leaving
waste in place with post-closure care. If the facility operates
under a permit, the permit should already contain a closure plan
and include any post-closure requirements. If the facility does
not have a permit, then a post-closure permit is needed only if
waste will be left in place.
This rule, known as the Closure/Post-Closure Rule, amends
RCRA's closure and post-closure care requirements by expand-
ing regulatory options available to EPA and authorized state
programs. These options remove impediments to cleanup at
hazardous waste facilities in two areas. First, regulators may
either issue a post-closure permit to a facility or impose the
47
-------
same requirements in an enforceable document issued under an
alternate non-permit authority. Second, EPA and authorized
states may use corrective action requirements to address these
units. The corrective action program, as discussed in the rule,
allows EPA and authorized states to clean up under RCRA,
CERCLA, or state authority authorized for this rule.
-------
Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule for Contaminated Media
(HWIR-Media) Rule
(40CFRPart260etseq)
November 30, 1998
EPA issued new RCRA
requirements for hazard-
ous remediation waste that
is treated, stored, or
disposed of during
cleanup actions. This
rule, known as the HWIR-
Media rule, streamlines
the RCRA permit require-
ments for cleanup activi-
ties through the use of
remedial action plans
(RAPs). It also eliminates
the requirement for
facility-wide corrective
action at sites that are only
required to obtain a permit
because of the cleanup
activities and discusses
the use of a "staging pile"
for temporary cleanup
waste storage.
HWIR Media Rule:
Makes permits for treating.
storing, and disposing of
hazardous remediation wastes
faster and easier to obtain;
Provides that obtaining these
permits will not subject the
owner and/or operator to
facility-wide corrective action;
Creates a new kind of unit
called a "staging pile" that
allows more flexibility to
temporarily store remedia-tion
waste during cleanup;
Excludes dredging materials
from RCRA Subtitle C
(hazardous waste manage-
ment requirements) if they are
managed under an appropriate
permit under the Marine
Protection, Re-search and
Protection Act or the Clean
Water Act; and.
Makes it faster and easier for
states to receive author-ization
when they update
their RCRA programs to
incorporate Federal RCRA
regulation revisions.
49
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
50
-------
Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
Corrective Action Management
Unit (CAMU) CFR Amendments
Use of CAMUs was authorized in 1993 for the purpose of on-
site treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes
managed for implementing cleanup. When cleanup wastes are
managed within a CAMU, they do not trigger certain Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act requirements that apply to
wastes generated by industrial processes. This gives the site
cleanup manager much more flexibility to consider a broader
range of cleanup options tailored to site- and waste-specific
conditions, and has led to faster and more aggressive cleanups
at individual sites.
The CAMU amendments are intended to provide minimum
standards for operation of CAMUs. They address concerns of
some stakeholders that management discretion under the
original rule might lead to mistakes or abuse. EPA believes the
amendments protect human health and the environment with-
out undoing the benefits of the CAMU rule, and make the
corrective action process is more consistent nationally, more
explicit, and more predictable in its results.
The final CAMU amendments for the management of remedia-
tion wastes were signed by the Administrator on December 21,
2001. They establish standards governing: (1) the types of
wastes that may be managed in a CAMU; (2) the design
standards that apply to CAMUs; (3) the treatment requirements
for wastes placed in CAMUs; (4) information submission
requirements for CAMU applications; (5) responses to releases
from CAMUs; and (6) public participation requirements for
CAMU decisions.
51
-------
In addition, this rule "grandfathers" certain categories of
CAMUs and creates new requirements for CAMUs used only
for treatment or storage. States currently authorized for the
CAMU rule are granted "interim authorization by rule." Expe-
dited authorization is provided for states authorized for correc-
tive action, but not the CAMU rule.
In response to comments, the Agency modified staging pile
rules to allow physical treatment in staging piles, expanding the
universe of CAMU-eligible wastes to include buried tanks
containing wastes, and giving Regional Administrators discre-
tion to choose a leaching test other than the Toxicity Character-
istic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to assess treatment. It also
adds a new provision allowing off-site placement of hazardous
CAMU-eligible waste in hazardous waste landfills, if they are
treated to meet modified CAMU treatment standards. States
that are already authorized for the 1993 CAMU Rule have 60
days to notify EPA that they intend to use the revised Correc-
tive Action Management Unit Standards rule as guidance.
-------
Issuing a policy or guidance document is the strongest
statement that EPA may make, short of issuing regulations,
regarding the manner in which EPA will generally approach the
handling and evaluating of a regulated entity. Although courts
are not required to consider EPA's administrative policies or
guidance documents, they have recognized EPA's technical
expertise and have previously given deference to EPA's admin-
istration of the laws over which the Agency has jurisdiction.
When a site, circumstance, or party fall within the defined
criteria of an EPA policy or guidance document, individuals
should find satisfaction in the fact that EPA will act in a man-
ner consistent with that policy. In many cases, EPA's statement
of policy not to pursue a particular party will provide adequate
protection and comfort to an eligible party so that additional
documentation from EPA is not needed. In other cases, the
potential for liability may motivate a party either to enter into
an agreement with EPA that provides protection from
CERCLA or RCRA actions brought by EPA or other parties, or
to seek written comfort from EPA.
The policy and guidance documents summarized in this section
describe the different options to manage CERCLA and RCRA
liability risks. Because the documents focus on issues at non-
federally-owned properties, parties interested in property
currently or formerly owned by the federal government should
consult the relevant documents listed in Appendix A.
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
54
-------
EPA Policies and Guidances
Policy Towards Owners of
Residential Property at
Superfund Sites
July 3, 1991
Owners of residential property located on a CERCLA site have
raised concerns that they would be responsible for performance
of a response action or payment of cleanup costs because they
fell within the definition of "owner" under CERCLA. Addi-
tionally, these owners were concerned that they might be
unable to sell their properties given the uncertainty of EPA
taking action against them or the new owners. EPA issued its
policy toward residential property owners to clarify when it
would not require these owners to perform or pay for cleanup.
The policy states that EPA, in the exercise of its enforcement
discretion, will not take an enforcement action against an
owner of residential property unless his activities lead to a
release or threat of release of hazardous substances, resulting in
EPA taking a response action at the property.
EPAs policy also applies to lessees of residential property
whose activities are consistent with the policy. In addition, the
policy applies to parties who acquire residential property
through purchase, foreclosure, gift, inheritance, or other form
of acquisition, as long as those persons' activities after acquisi-
tion are consistent with the policy.
Other Considerations
With respect to EPA's exercise of enforcement discretion under
this policy, it is irrelevant whether an owner of residential
property has or had knowledge or reason to believe that con-
tamination was present on the site at the time of purchase or
sale of the residential property.
55
-------
Threshold Criteria
An owner of residential property located on a CERCLA
site is protected if the owner:
• Has not and does not engage in activities that lead to a release or
threat of release of hazardous substances, resulting in EPA taking a
response action at the site;
• Cooperates fully with EPA by providing access and information when
requested and does not interfere with the activities that either EPA
or a state are taking to implement a CERCLA response action;
• Does not improve the property in a manner inconsistent with
residential use; and
• Complies with institutional controls (e.g., property use restrictions)
that may be placed on the residential property as part of the Agency's
response action.
For further information contact:
(202)564-5100
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
-------
EPA Policies and Guidances
Policy Towards Owners of Property
Containing Contaminated Aquifers
July 3, 1995
The contaminated aquifer policy addresses the CERCLA
liability of owners of property that contain an aquifer contami-
nated by a source or sources outside their property. These
owners were concerned that EPA would hold them responsible
for cleanup under CERCLA even though they did not cause
and could not have prevented the groundwater contamination.
The policy states that EPA, in an exercise of its enforcement
discretion, will not take an action under CERCLA to require
cleanup or the payment of cleanup costs provided that the
landowner did not cause or contribute to the contamination.
Other Considerations
If a third party who caused or contributed to the contamination
sues or threatens to sue the landowner, EPA may consider
entering into a de minimis landowner settlement with the
landowner covered under this policy.
For further information contact:
Elisabeth Freed - (202) 564-5117
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
57
-------
Threshold Criteria
A landowner is protected by this policy if all of the follow-
ing criteria are met:
• The hazardous substances contained in the aquifer are present solely
as the result of subsurface migration from a source or sources outside
the landowner's property;
• The landowner did not cause, contribute to, or make the contamination
worse through any act or omission on his part;
• The person responsible for contaminating the aquifer is not an agent
or employee of the landowner, and was not in a direct or indirect
contractual relationship with the landowner (exclusive of conveyance
of title); and
• The landowner is not considered a liable party under CERCLA for
any other reason such as contributing to the contamination as a
generator or transporter.
This policy may not apply in cases where:
• The property contains a groundwater well that may influence the
migration of contamination in the affected aquifer; or
• The landowner acquires the property, directly or indirectly, from a
person who caused the original release.
-------
EPA Policies and Guidances
Policy on Interpreting CERCLA
Provisions Addressing Lenders and
Involuntary Acquisitions by
Government Entities
June 30, 1997
The lender liability policy clarifies the circumstances in which
EPA intends to apply, as guidance, the provisions of the 1992
CERCLA Lender Liability Rule ("Rule") and its preamble in
interpreting CERCLA's lender and involuntary acquisition
provisions. The Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and
Deposit Insurance Protection Act of 1996 amended these
CERCLA provisions and generally followed the approach of
the Rule. EPAs subsequent lender policy explains that when
interpreting the amended secured creditor exemption, EPA will
treat the Rule and its preamble as authoritative guidance. For
example, the amendments do not clarify the steps that a lender
may take after foreclosure and still remain exempt from owner/
operator liability. In making liability determinations, EPA,
following its policy, will defer to the Rule (see box, page 60).
The 1996 amendment also validates the portion of the Rule that
addresses involuntary acquisitions by government entities.
EPAs policy clarifies that similar to the preamble of any valid
regulation, EPA will look to the preamble to the CERCLA
Lender Liability Rule as authoritative guidance on the meaning
of the portion of the Rule that addresses involuntary acquisitions.
For further information contact:
Bob Kenney - (202) 564-5127
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
59
-------
Example
After foreclosure, a lender who did not "participate in
management" prior to foreclosure may generally:
• Maintain business activities;
• Wind up operations; and
• Take actions to preserve, protect, or prepare the property for sale
provided that the lender attempts to sell or re-lease the property
held pursuant to a sale or lease financing transaction, or otherwise
divest itself of the property in a reasonably expeditious manner
using commercially reasonable means. This timeframe will
generally be met if the lender, within 12 months of foreclosure,
lists the property with a broker or advertises it for sale in an
appropriate publication.
-------
EPA Policies and Guidances
Policy on the Issuance of EPA
Comfort/Status Letters
November 12, 1996
Some properties may remain unused or underutilized because
potential property owners, developers, and lenders are unsure
of the environmental status of these properties. By issuing
comfort/status letters, EPA helps interested parties better
understand the likelihood of EPA involvement at a potentially
contaminated property. Although not intending to become
involved in typical private real estate transactions, EPA is
willing to provide a comfort/status letter when appropriate.
Comfort/status letters are intended to clarify the likelihood of
EPA involvement at a site; identify whether a party is protect-
ed by a statutory provision or discretionary enforcement policy;
or indicate the progress of a Superfund cleanup. If EPA is not
involved at the property, the party may be referred to the
appropriate state agency for further information.
Comfort letters address a particular set of circumstances and
provide whatever information is contained within EPAs data-
bases. Questions typically addressed by comfort letters
include:
Is the site or property listed in CERCLIS?
• Has the site been archived from CERCLIS?
Is the site or property contained within the defined boundaries of a
CERCLIS site?
Has the site or property been addressed by EPA and deleted from the
defined site boundary?
Is the site or property being addressed by a state voluntary cleanup
program?
Is EPA planning or currently performing a response action at the site"
61
-------
Evaluation Criteria
EPA may issue a comfort letter upon request if:
• The letter may facilitate cleanup and redevelopment of potentially
contaminated property;
• There is the realistic perception or probability of incurring CERCL A
liability.
• There is no other mechanism available to adequately address the
party's concerns.
Are the conditions at the site or activities of the party addressed by a
statutory provision or EPA policy?
Is the site in CERCLIS but designated as state-lead or deferred to the
state agency for cleanup?
The agency generally uses four sample comfort letters to
respond to requests. The samples can be found in Appendix D.
A summary of the report on the effectiveness of comfort/status
letters may be found in Appendix C.
For further information contact:
Elisabeth Freed - (202) 564-5117
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
-------
EPA Policies and Guidances
Interim Approaches for Regional
Relations with State Voluntary
Cleanup Programs
November 14, 1996
State and local empowerment to clean up sites is at the center
of EPA's Brownfields program. Many states have developed
voluntary cleanup programs that are designed to achieve pro-
tective cleanups at sites that are not on the NPL.
EPA regional offices have developed partnerships with states
that have voluntary cleanup programs through the negotiation
of Memoranda of Agreements (MO As). Through the MO A,
EPA and the interested state address state capabilities, pro-
grammatic areas, and the types of sites the state will include in
the MOA.
With the guidance, EPA intends to facilitate regional/state
MOA negotiations. The MOA delineates the roles and respon-
sibilities between a state and EPA with respect to sites being
cleaned up under the state's voluntary cleanup programs. This
interim guidance sets out six baseline criteria that are evaluated
before a region enters into an MOA with a state for its volun-
tary cleanup program. Through the completed and signed
MOA, EPA acknowledges the adequacy of the state voluntary
cleanup program. EPA also agrees that for sites addressed
under the MOA, it does not plan or anticipate taking a removal
or remedial action, unless EPA determines that there may be an
imminent and substantial danger to public health or welfare or
the environment.
Similar to CERCLA MO As, EPA is developing Memoranda of
Understanding (MOUs) between interested states and EPA
63
-------
regional offices when states region and state.
use an appropriate non-RCRA
authorized State authority to For further information contact:
Oversee the cleanup of Specific Matt Sander - (202) 564-7233
RCRA facilities Where Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
., , , ,, , r. Jennifer Wilbur-(202) 566-0797
considered mutually benefi- „ . , j o • , r> • t ot «-
J Outreach and Special Project Staff
cial, a regional office, working
with Headquarters, may enter
into a MOU to solidify expec-
tations and worksharing
arrangements between the
Program Evaluation Criteria
EPA may enter into a MOA that addresses a state voluntary
cleanup program if all of the following baseline criteria are
met:
• Opportunities for meaningful community involvement.
• Voluntary response actions are protective of human health and the
environment.
• Adequate resources to ensure that voluntary response actions are
conducted in an appropriate and timely manner, and that both
technical assistance and streamlined procedures, where appropriate,
are available from the state agency responsible for the voluntary
cleanup program.
• Mechanisms for the written approval of response action plans and a
certification or similar documentation indicating that the response
actions are complete.
• Adequate oversight to ensure that voluntary response actions are
conducted in such a manner to assure protection of human health
and the environment, as described above.
• Capability, through enforcement or other authorities, of ensuring
completion of response actions if the volunteering party(ies)
conducting the response action fail(s) or refuse(s) to complete the
necessary response action, including operation and maintenance or
long-term monitoring activities, if appropriate.
-------
EPA Policies and Guidances
Revised Settlement Policy and
Contribution Waiver Language
Regarding Exempt De Micromis and
Non-Exempt De Micromis Parties
November 6, 2002
EPA provides enhanced protection for a subset ofde minimis
waste contributors referred to as non-exempt de micromis
waste contributors. Non-exempt de micromis settlements may
be available to parties who generated or transported a minus-
cule amount of waste to a Superfund site, which is an amount
less than the minimal amount normally contributed by
de minimis parties. EPA's revised guidance defines eligible
non-exempt de micromis parties as those parties who fall
outside the statutory definition of a qualified exempt de
micromis (see Section 107(o)), but who may be deserving of
similar treatment based on case-specific factors. The presump-
tive cut-off for a non-exempt de micromis party is 110 gallons
(e.g., two 55 gallon drums) or 200 pounds of material contain-
ing hazardous substances. Regions have the flexibility to
consider higher amounts on a site-specific basis.
As a matter of policy, EPA does not pursue non-exempt
de micromis waste contributors for the costs of cleaning up a
site. If, however, a non-exempt de micromis party is threatened
with litigation by other parties at the site for the costs of
cleanup, EPA may enter into a zero dollar settlement with the
non-exempt de micromis party. Non-exempt de micromis
settlements provide both a covenant not to sue from the Agency
and contribution protection against other parties at the site.
65
-------
Refer to http://cfub.sdc-moses.com/compliance/policies/
cleanup/superfund/index.cfm for more information.
For further information contact:
Victoria Van Roden - (202) 564-4268
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
-------
EPA Policies and Guidances
Guidance on Enforcement
Approaches for Expediting RCRA
Corrective Action
Expediting corrective action cleanup activities at facilities that
treat, store, or dispose hazardous waste is essential to protect-
ing human health and the environment and potentially making
these properties available for other uses. EPA Regions and
States authorized to implement the corrective action program in
lieu of EPA have developed innovative approaches to achieve
timely, protective, and efficient cleanups. This guidance
describes a number of enforcement approaches to expedite
corrective action (see box on page 68}. It provides examples of
approaches designed to reduce the amount of process and
procedures such as creative use of schedules and other federal
statutory cleanup authorities. It also provides specific ex-
amples of tools such as facility-initiated agreements that are
more flexible than typical corrective action enforcement orders.
For further information contact:
Karin Koslow - (202) 564-0771
67
-------
Expediting Components of Corrective Action
Creative Schedules and Deadlines - include time limits to
negotiate work plans, consent orders, and permits; fixed and
flexible schedules of compliance; and limiting work prod-
uct revisions.
Alternatives to a Collaborative Approach - encourage a
more cooperative response from the facility owner/operator
by presenting a less collaborative alternative such as a judi-
cial action or a unilateral administrative order (UAO).
Penalty Provisions - include penalty provisions in enforce-
ment documents, and collection of penalties when the facil-
ity fails to comply with the permit or order.
Other Federal Statutory Authorities - use other federal
authorities such as CERCLA §106(a).
Innovative Mechanisms to Require Corrective Action
Facility-Initiated Agreement
A facility-initiated agreement is a non-binding corrective
action agreement between EPA and a facility owner/opera-
tor. The purpose of the agreement is to allow a motivated
owner/operator to initiate and perform corrective action in a
manner that is consistent with all relevant laws and regula-
tions and avoid negotiating an enforceable order.
Streamlined Consent Order
A streamlined consent order is a pared-down, results-based
order. It contains enforceable deadlines and stipulated pen-
alties and lacks the traditional specificity as to how the owner/
operator should accomplish corrective action activities. In-
stead, it identifies performance standards that must be met
by specific dates. With this type of order, EPA's over-
sight role is minimized throughout the corrective action process.
-------
Innovative Mechanisms to Require Corrective Action
Unilateral Letter Order
The unilateral letter order is a legally binding, results-based
order that can be entered into under any RCRA statutory
administrative order authority. It is similar to a letter in that
it is written in a less formal format and style than a tradi-
tional order.
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
70
-------
EPA Policies and Guidances
Coordination Between RCRA
Corrective Action and Closure and
CERCLA Site Activities
September 24, 1996
The goal of this memorandum is to continue to coordinate the
CERCLA and RCRA cleanup programs in order to eliminate
duplication of effort, streamline cleanup processes, and build
effective relationships with states and tribes. Three areas are
discussed in the memorandum to accomplish this goal: accep-
tance of decisions made by other remedial programs; deferral
of activities and coordination among RCRA, CERCLA and
state/tribal cleanup programs; and coordination of the specific
standards and administrative requirements for closure of regu-
lated units with other cleanup activities. Topics that are dis-
cussed in greater detail in the memorandum include program
deferral and coordination between programs with examples of
current approaches that are in use.
For further information contact:
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(202)564-5100
71
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
72
-------
February 14, 2001
On November 8, 1996, the Office of Enforcement and Compli-
ance Assurance (OECA) issued its "Policy on the Issuance of
Comfort/Status Letters," which focuses on properties primarily
associated with Superfund sites. Since that time, regional staff
and private parties have inquired about the applicability of
that policy to property within or adjacent to facilities subject
to RCRA.
While EPA has not yet issued a formal policy on the use of
RCRA comfort/status letters, there may be sites subject to
RCRA requirements where the circumstances are analogous to
the circumstances at Superfund sites. Site-specific circum-
stances determine whether a comfort/status letter is appropri-
ate, but generally comfort/status letters may be appropriate at
brownfields associated with RCRA treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities; "generator-only" sites; or other property
where RCRA hazardous waste is discovered during cleanup
and/or redevelopment activities. This memorandum encour-
ages regional staff to use "comfort/status" letters at such
RCRA facilities, where appropriate, and provides some ex-
amples of regional RCRA comfort/status letters. In the RCRA
context, comfort/status letters relate only to EPAs intent to
exercise its RCRA corrective action response and enforcement
authorities. As with the Superfund policy, the "comfort" comes
from knowing what EPA knows about the property and what
EPAs intentions are in terms of a response action. Regional
-------
staff should look to the Superfund comfort/status letter policy
for general guidelines on the issuance of RCRA comfort/
status letters.
For further information contact:
Elisabeth Freed- (202) 564-5117
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
-------
APPENDIXA
75
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
76
-------
Related Policies and Guidance
In addition to issuing policy and guidance documents that
provide tools to manage CERCLA and RCRA liability risks,
EPA has issued various policy and guidance documents that
promote faster investigation, cleanup, and redevelopment of
sites. Summarized below is just a small sampling of the many
policy and guidance documents that may be helpful to parties
interested in managing CERCLA and RCRA liability risks at
brownfields and other sites.
Copies of the policy and guidance documents can be obtained
from the Superfund and RCRA Hotline (800) 424-9346 or on
EPAs web pages.
Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement
www.epa.gov/compliance/
about/offices/osre.html
Brownfields
www.epa.gov/brownfields
Office of Solid Waste
www.epa.gov/osw
Superfund
www. epa.gov/superfund
77
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
78
-------
CERCLA Orientation Manual
October 1992
The CERCLA Orientation Manual serves as a program orienta-
tion guide and reference document to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
The purpose of the manual is to assist EPA and state personnel
involved with hazardous waste remediation, emergency re-
sponse, and chemical and emergency preparedness. The organi-
zational and operational components of the Superfund program
also are described.
To order a hard copy:
National Center for Environmental Publications and Information
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
(513)489-8190
Document number: EPA542-R-92-005
National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300)
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contin-
gency Plan, more commonly called the National Contingency
Plan (NCP), establishes a comprehensive process by which the
federal government responds to both oil spills and hazardous
substances. The NCP coordinates response efforts such as
accident reporting, spill containment, cleanup, and personnel
contacts.
To access on line:
www.epa.gov/oilspill/ncpover.htm
-------
This IsSuperfund -A Citizen's Guide to EPA's
Superfund Program
"This is Superfund" introduces basic issues regarding the
Superfund program. Topics addressed include how Superfund
sites are discovered and who pays for and is involved in clean-
ups. Key terms for understanding the Superfund program, such
as potentially responsible party and National Priorities List are
defined.
To order a hard copy:
National Center for Environmental Publications and Information
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
(513)489-8190
Document number: EPA540-K-99-006
To access on line:
www.epa.gov/superfund/whatissf/sfguide.htm
Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
In 1997 Congress enacted the Community Reinvestment Act
requiring lenders to make capital available in low- and moder-
ate-income urban neighborhoods, thereby giving rise to con-
cerns over potential environmental and financial liability for
cleanups at sites by lenders, developers, and property owners.
The Community Reinvestment Act establishes creative initia-
tives for economic development while easing fears of financial
liability and regulatory burdens.
For further information contact:
Outreach and Special Projects Staff
(202)260-4039
To access on line:
www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/html-doc/cra.htm
-------
Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the NPL
November 1, 1995
EPA deletes sites from the NPL with state concurrence when
no further cleanup response is warranted under CERCLA.
Historically, only entire sites could be deleted from the NPL.
Under this policy, parties may submit petitions for partial
deletions to EPA. Additionally, the policy gives EPA regional
offices the flexibility to clarify which areas of NPL sites are
considered uncontaminated due to the completion of proper
investigation or cleanup actions.
Before a portion of a site can be considered for partial deletion
from the NPL, it must meet the same deletion criteria that an
entire site must meet. (See 40 CFR § 300.425).
For further information contact:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(703)603-8960
To access on line:
www.epa.gov/swerffrr/documents/frl 10195 .htm
Guidance on Deferral of NPL Listing Determin-
ations While States Oversee Response Actions
May 3, 1995
The deferral guidance provides a framework for regional
offices, states, and tribes to determine the most appropriate,
effective, and efficient means to respond to hazardous waste
sites. Implementation is flexible in order to account for the
different capabilities of these acting parties.
For further information contact:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(703)603-8960
To access on line:
www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/html-doc/deferral.htm
-------
The NPL for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Sites; Listing and Deletion Policy for Federal
Facilities
November 24, 1997
This document establishes an interim final revision to the
Agency's policy on placing federal facility sites on the National
Priorities List. The interim final policy revisions also apply to
federal facility sites that are RCRA-regulated facilities engaged
in treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste.
For further information contact:
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
(202)260-9924
To access on line:
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ERA-WASTE/1997/November/Day-24/O0518.htm
Policy Towards Landowners and Transferees of
Federal Facilities
June 13, 1997
This policy was created to address the potential liability con-
cerns of non-federal parties who acquire federal facility prop-
erty. Such acquisitions have become increasingly common
with the reduction in size and number of federal facilities such
as military bases. The intent of this policy is to alleviate
uncertainty regarding potential enforcement action by EPA
against landowners and transferees (i.e., lessees) of federal
facility properties.
For further information contact:
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
(202)260-9924
To order a hard copy:
Superfund Docket Center at (703) 603-9232
the Superfund Hotline at (800) 424-9346,
or the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at (800) 533-NTIS.
-------
EPA Guidance on the Transfer of Federal
Property by Deed Before All Necessary
Remedial Action Has Been Taken Pursuant to
CERCLA Section 120(h)(3).
June 16, 1998
This guidance, referred to as the "Early Transfer Guidance,"
describes EPA's process in determining a federally-owned
property's suitability for transfer to a private party prior to the
completion of all necessary cleanup action Concurrence of a
state's governor is required.
For further information contact:
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
(202) 260-9924
To access on line:
www.epa.gov/swerffrr/documents/hkfm.htm
Road Map to Understanding Innovative
Technology Options for Brownfields
Investigation and Cleanup
June 1997
The Road Map identifies potential technology options available
at each of the basic phases involved in the characterization and
cleanup of brownfields sites: site assessment, site investigation,
cleanup options, and cleanup design and implementation. The
Road Map is not a guidance document. Rather, each section
describes the steps involved in the characterization and cleanup
of brownfields sites and connects those steps with available
technology options and supporting technology information
resources. Appendices in the Road Map include a list of
common contaminants found at typical brownfields sites, a
detailed guide to common environmental terms and acronyms,
and a list of state and EPA brownfields contacts.
-------
For further information contact:
Technology Innovation Office
(703)603-9910
To order a hard copy:
National Center for Environmental Publications and Information
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
Telephone: (513)489-8190
Document number: EPA 542-B-97-002
To access on line:
Second edition available at www.clu-in.org/roadmap/
Tool Kit of Information Resources for
Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup
June 1997
The Tool Kit provides abstracts and access information for a
variety of relevant resources, including electronic databases and
bulletin boards, newsletters, regulatory and policy guidance,
and technical reports. The Tool Kit describes the resources
identified in the Road Map, explains how to obtain the publica-
tions, and provides a "starter kit" of important information
resources to help brownfield stakeholders understand available
technology.
For further information contact:
Technology Innovation Office
(703)603-9910
To order a hard copy:
National Center for Environmental Publications and Information
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
Telephone: (513)489-8190
Document number: EPA542-B-97-001
To access on line:
Second edition available at www.clu-in.org/roadmap/
Soil Screening Guidance: Fact Sheet
-------
May 17, 1996
EPA's Soil Screening Guidance helps standardize and acceler-
ate the evaluation and cleanup of contaminated soils atNPL
sites where future residential land use is anticipated. To help
identify areas at sites on the NPL that need further investigation
or that may be screened out from further consideration, the
guidance provides a step-by-step methodology for determining
levels of soil contamination. The Soil Screening Guidance can
help speed up the investigation and cleanup of contaminated
sites, save time and money and make sites available for rede-
velopment more quickly.
Documents related to the guidance include the Soil Screening
Guidance User's Guide, Fact Sheet, and Technical Background
Document.
For further information contact:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(703)603-8960
To access on line:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/so il7fact_sht.pdf
Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection
Process Description
May 1995
EPA's land use directive promotes early discussions with local
land use planning authorities, local officials, and the public
regarding reasonably anticipated future uses of the property on
which a NPL site is located. The directive also encourages the
use of realistic assumptions regarding future land use in the
baseline risk assessment the development of remedial alterna-
tives, and the CERCLA remedy selection process.
-------
For further information:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(703)603-8960
To access on line:
wvw.epa.gov/swero sp^f/pdf71and_use.pdf
Overview of Presumptive Remedies
Presumptive remedies are technologies or strategies that are
preferred for use at sites with specific common characteristics.
They have been developed to take advantage of Superfund's
extensive experience in remediating complex hazardous waste
sites. This experience has shown that certain remedies are
generally appropriate for sites with specific common character-
istics, e.g., type of contaminant present, type of previous
industrial use, and environmental medium affected. Relying on
presumptive remedies can streamline the site assessment,
remedy selection, and RD/RA processes. EPA has developed
presumptive remedy guidance for five types of site:
Municipal landfills
Volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") in soils
Metals in soils
Wood treatment
Contaminated ground water
EPA has been using presumptive remedies since 1993. As of
October 1997, presumptive remedies had been used or were
being used at 48 Superfund sites accounting for more than 80
operable units. Using presumptive remedies has a number of
advantages:
Saving time and money. EPA estimates that municipal landfills
implementing the presumptive remedy of containment, for example,
-------
experience time savings ranging from 36 to 56 percent, and cost
savings of up to 60 percent from streamlining the remedial
investigation/feasibility study process.
Promoting consistency in remedy selection. Using similar
remedies at similar types of sites saves time and allows cross-site
comparisons, which help to refine remedy implementation.
Improving predictability in remedy selection. When a
presumptive remedy is proposed, interested parties can review previous
actions at similar sites. This may increase their confidence in the
proposed remedy and speed up remedy selection.
Workload reduction. Implementation of presumptive remedies
has been tried and tested, accelerating the process of screening and
selecting remedies. Thus savings in time and money often may be
achieved at the same time workloads are reduced.
Expert support. RPMs can access presumptive remedy experts
who can provide information and support during remedy
implementation.
NCP compliance. Use of presumptive remedies advances NCP
remedy selection objectives by promoting consistency in remedy
screening and selection.
Relying on presumptive remedies is EPA policy. EPA guidance
states that presumptive remedies are to be used at all appropri-
-------
ate sites, except under unusual, site-specific circumstances.
This means that RPMs working at the types of sites listed
above should always investigate the possibility of implement-
ing a presumptive remedy.
For more information contact:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(703)603-8960
To access on line:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/presump
Methodology for Early De Minimis Waste
Contributor Settlements under CERCLA
Section 122(g)(1)(A)
June 2, 1992
Under CERCLA section 122(g)(l)(A), EPA is authorized to
enter into settlements with minor waste contributors de minimis
parties of a site when practicable and in the public interest.
This policy provides guidance for early consideration and
proposals of such de minimis settlements, including the meth-
odology to facilitate settlement, and procedures for identifying
early de minimis candidates.
For further information contact:
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(202)564-5100
To access on line:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/superfund/demin-secl22-
rpt.pdf
Policy for Municipality and Municipal Solid
-------
Waste CERCLA Settlements at NPL Co-
Disposal Sites
February 5, 1998
This policy supplements the Interim Policy on CERCLA
Settlements Involving Municipalities and Municipal Waste
issued September 30, 1989. Under this policy, EPA continues
the practice of generally not identifying generators and trans-
porters of municipal solid waste as potentially responsible
parties at NPL sites. The policy identifies a settlement meth-
odology for making settlements to MSW generators and trans-
porters seeking to resolve liability. It also identifies a pre-
sumptive settlement range for municipal owners and operators
of co-disposal sites on the NPL seeking to settle their
Superfund liability.
For further information conmtact:
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(202)564-5100
To access on line:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/superfund/munic-solwst-
mem.pdf
General Policy on Superfund Ability to Pay
Determinations
September 30, 1997
The Superfund ability to pay (ATP) policy document explains
what is necessary for an acceptable ability to pay settlement in
Superfund cases. The main text of the policy document ad-
dresses general issues that apply to the ATP process and ATP
settlements. The policy document also contains two appendi-
ces that address issues specific to making ATP determinations
for individuals and businesses.
The policy document establishes an "undue financial hardship"
-------
standard for determining a party's ability to pay its share of
Superfund clean up costs and uses a two-part analysis to
determine what is an acceptable ATP settlement amount.
This policy is intended to apply outside of a formal bankruptcy
context because the bankruptcy laws provide other mechanism
to protect debtors from undue financial hardship or to allow
viable business to reorganize.
For further information contact:
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(202)564-5100
To access on line:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/superfund/genpol-atp-
rpt.pdf
Fact Sheet: Revised De Micromis Guidance
June 4, 1996
This fact sheet describes EPA's efforts in reducing transaction
costs for very small volume contributors (de micromis parties).
It outlines cut-off ranges considered in assessing a party's
waste contribution and also discusses additional reference
documents that may be of interest to de micromis parties.
For further information contact:
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(202)564-5100
To access on line:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/superfund/fs-
demicromis-rpt.pdf
Streamlined Approach for Settlements With De
-------
Minimis Waste Contributors under CERCLA Section
122(g)(1)(A)
July 30, 1993
This guidance encourages EPA regional offices to take a more
active role in facilitating de minimis settlements by establish-
ing minimum levels of information necessary before consider-
ing a de minimis settlement, and providing a methodology
for payment.
For further information contact:
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(202)564-510
To access on line:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/superfund/app-
deminimis-rpt.pdf
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
Corrective Action for Releases from Solid
Waste Management Units at Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities
May 1, 1996
The action proposed in this Notice (ANPR) was a key step in
EPA's effort to improve the RCRA corrective action program.
The ANPR introduced EPA's strategy to develop corrective
action issues; provided a status report on the successes of the
program; and emphasized areas of flexibility within current
corrective action implementation. The ANPR encourages and
describes tools that create a consistent holistic approach to
clean up at RCRA facilities; establishes protective, practical
clean up expectations; shifts more of the responsibilities to
achieve clean up on those responsible for the contamination;
streamlines corrective action and reduces cost; and enhances
opportunities for timely, meaningful public participation. In
addition, the ANPR serves as the primary guidance document
-------
for the RCRA corrective action program.
For further information contact:
Office of Solid Waste
(703) 308-8404
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(202)564-5100
To access on line:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/resourc e/guidance/gen_ca/anpr.htm
RCRA Expanded Public Participation Rule
60 FR 63417
December 1995
EPA developed the RCRA Expanded Public Participation Rule
to empower communities to become more actively involved in
local hazardous waste management. This rule makes it easier
for citizens to become involved earlier and more often in the
process of permitting hazardous waste facilities. It also expands
public access to information about facilities. As a result, the
rule enables communities to become more active participants in
important local environmental decisions.
The RCRA Expanded Public Participation Rule also helps
facilities. Earlier participation can eliminate confusion or
delays in the permitting process that can occur when the public
is not involved until much later. This helps ensure that the
permitting process moves forward in a timely manner. By
fostering better relationships with communities, the rule also
can help improve facilities' images and reduce potential con-
flict. In addition, citizens are often able to provide valuable
information regarding local conditions for facilities to consider
in developing their permit applications. Furthermore, the rule is
very flexible—it identifies the basic requirements needed to
satisfy EPA's public participation goals and recommends
-------
additional activities that facilities might conduct.
For further information contact:
Office of Solid Waste
(703) 308-8404
To access on line:
http: //www. epa. go v/epao swer/haz waste/permit/pubpart/manual .htm
Corrective Action Oversight
February 7, 1992
Oversight in general is the management of all activities related
to corrective action at a site. The oversight approach discussed
in this guidance encourages project managers and owners/
operators to develop a plan that allows for the appropriate level
of oversight rather than a pre-determined "one size fits all"
process. The guidance emphasizes that the project manager
should base the oversight plan on facility-specific conditions
and owner/operator capabilities and develop an appropriate
level of oversight that will ensure timely, efficient, and protec-
tive cleanups.
For further information contact:
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(202)564-5100
To access on line:
http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/about/offices/osre.html
The RCRA Public Participation Manual
EPA designed this document as a "user's manual." It explains
how public participation works in the RCRA permitting process
(including corrective action), and how citizens, regulators, and
industry can cooperate to make it work better. It also describes
a wide assortment of activities to enhance public participation,
and includes several appendices that provide lists of contacts,
sources of information, and examples of public participation
-------
tools and activities. The 1996 RCRA Public Participation
Manual supersedes the 1993 RCRA Public Involvement
Manual.
For further information contact:
Office of Solid Waste
(703) 308-8404
To access on line:
http: //www. epa.gov/epao swer/haz waste/pemit/pubpart/manual. html
The Handbook of Groundwater Protection
and Cleanup Policies for RCRA Corrective
Action
The Handbook of Groundwater Protection contains the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency's (EPAs) latest interpretation of
policies on such topics as cleanup goals, the role of groundwa-
ter use, point of compliance, source control, and monitored
natural attenuation. This Handbook ties 15 different topics
together with an overall Groundwater Protection and Cleanup
Strategy that emphasizes a phased, results-based approach to
cleaning up contaminated groudwater.
For further information contact:
Office of Solid Waste
(703) 308-8404
To access online:
http://www.epa.gov/correctiveaction/resource/guidance/gw/gwhandbk/gwhbfinl.pdf
-------
APPENDIX B
95
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
96
-------
Fact Sheets
Eligibility for Brownfields Funding
September 2002,
Introduction
President George W. Bush
signed, the Small Business
Liability Relief and
Brownfields Revitalization
Act into law on January 11,
2002. The Brownfields Law
expands potential federal
financial assistance for
brownfield revitalization,
including grants for
assessment, cleanup, and job
training. The new law also
limits the liability of certain
contiguous property owners
and prospective purchasers
of brownfield properties, and
clarifies innocent landowner
defenses to encourage
revitalization and reuse of
brownfield sites. The
Brownfields Law also includes
provisions to establish and
enhance state and tribal
response programs, which will
continue to play a critical role in
the successful cleanup and
revitalization of brownfields.
This summary highlights the
eligibility requirements of the
new law.
Type of Grant
Eligible Entities
Brownfields assessment
grants
Brownfields revolving loan
fund grants
Brownfields direct cleanup
grants
To be used only for the
remediation of properties
owned by the eligible party
"Eligible entities" as defined in the
new Brownfields Law
"Eligible entities" as defined in the
new Brownfields Law
and Nonprofit Organizations
(note: EPA will use the
definition of nonprofit organizations
contained in Section 4(6) of the
Federal Financial Assistance
Management Improvement Act of
1999, Public Law 106-107)
97
-------
Eligible Entities and
Properties under the New
Law
There are two aspects to
brownfields funding
eligibility:
1) Eligible Entities
(who can receive a
brownfields grant)
2) Eligible Properties
(which properties are
eligible for funding).
Parties eligible for brownfields
grants include:
The new Brownfields Law
defines "Eligible Entities"
General purpose unit
of local government
(note: for purposes of
the brownfields grant
program, EPA defines
general purpose unit of
local government as a
"local government" as
that term is defined
under 40 CFR Part 31)
Land clearance
authority or other
quasi -governmental
entity that operates
under the supervision
and control of or as an
agent of a general
purpose unit of
localgovernment
• Government entity
created by a state
legislature
Regional council or
group of general
purpose units of local
government
Redevelopment
agency that is
chartered or otherwise
sanctioned by a state
Statelndian tribe other
than in Alaska (note:
intertribal Consortia
are eligible for
funding in accordance
with EPAs policy for
funding intertribal
consortia)
Alaska native
Regional Corporation
and an Alaska Native
Village Corporation
and the Metlakatla
Indian community
Under the new
Brownfields Law, Eligible
Properties include:
Properties that meet
the definition of a
Brownfield Site under
the new Brownfields
Law
-------
• Properties for which
EPA has made a
property-specific
funding determination,
based upon the criteria
provided in the new
Brownfields Law.
The new Brownfields Law
defines a "BrownfieldSite"
to mean: "...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." Brownfield
sites include residential, as well
as commercial and industrial
properties.
Property-Specific
Determinations of
Eligibility
Property-Specific
Determinations: The
Brownfields Law excludes
certain types of property from
funding eligibility, unless EPA
makes a property-specific
funding determination:
Facilities subject to
planned or ongoing
CERCLA removal
actions.
Facilities that are
subject to unilateral
administrative orders,
court orders,
administrative orders
on consent or judicial
consent decree or to
which a permit has
been issued by the
United States or an
authorized state under
the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (as
amended by the
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
(RCRA)), the Federal
Water Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA),
the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA),
or the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA).
Facilities subject to
corrective action orders
under RCRA (sections
3004(u) or 3008(h))
and to which a
corrective action
permit or order has
been issued or
modified to require the
implementation of
corrective measures.
-------
Land disposal units 1.
that have filed a
closure notification
under subtitle C of 2.
RCRA and to which
closure requirements
have been specified in
a closure plan or
permit.
• Facilities where there
has been a release of
polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and
are subject to
remediation under
TSCA.
• Portions of facilities
for which funding for
remediation has been
obtained from the
Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST)
Trust Fund.
Criteria for Property
Specific Funding
Determinations:
The new legislation allows
EPA to award financial
assistance to an
eligible entity for
assessment or clean up
activities at the site, if
it is found that
financial assistance
will:
Protect human health
and the environment,
and
Either:
promote economic
development; or
enable the creation of,
preservation of, or
addition to parks,
green ways,
undeveloped property,
other recreational
property, or other
property used for
nonprofit purposes.
Facilities subject to
unilateral
administrative orders,
court orders,
administrative orders
on consent or judicial
consent decree issued
to or entered into by
parties under
CERCLA.
Facilities that are
subject to the
jurisdiction, custody or
control of the United
States government.
-------
Facilities not Eligible for
Brownfields Funding:
Facilities listed (or
proposed for listing) on
the National Priorities
List (NPL).
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
102
-------
Summary of Brownfields Grants
Guidelines
September 2002
President George W. Bush
signed, the Small Business
Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act into law. on
January 11,2002. The
Brownfields Law expands
potential federal financial
assistance for brownfield
revitalization, including grants
for assessment, cleanup, and job
training. The new law also
limits the liability of certain
contiguous property owners and
prospective purchasers of
brownfield properties, and
clarifies innocent landowner
defenses to encourage
revitalization and reuse of
brownfield sites. The
Brownfields Law also includes
provisions to establish and
enhance state and tribal
response programs, which will
continue to play a critical role in
the successful cleanup and
revitalization of brownfields.
This summary highlights the
new grant guidelines and select
provisions of the new law
relevant to applicants.
Fiscal Year 2003 Grant
Guideline Highlights
The FY03 Brownfields
Grant Guideline is a
document that provides
applicants with
information on
requirements for
applying for three types
of Brownfields grants:
assessment grants,
revolving loan fund
(RLF) grants, and, new
in FY03, direct cleanup
grants. These grants are
authorized under Subtitle A
of the new Brownfields law
to promote the cleanup and
redevelopment of
brownfields by providing
financial assistance for
revitalization efforts. Job
training grant guidelines and
Grant Funding Guidance for
State and Tribal Response
programs under Subtitle C of
the Brownfields law are
being published separately.
-------
The FY03 Brownfields
grant guidelines reflect a
new approach. The
proposal process has also been
streamlined to allow
applicants to prepare an initial
proposal for funding under
three different types of grants:
assessment, RLF anddirect
cleanup. EPA will review the
applicants' Initial Proposals,
and, after ranking, will invite a
subset of these applicants to
submit to EPA their final
proposals.
Eligible Entities
A wide range of
governmental entities are
eligible for assessment,
RLF and direct cleanup
grants. Eligible
governmental entities include
states, tribes, local
governments, councils of
government, and state
chartered redevelopment
agencies.
In addition, the new
Brownfields law provides
two new ways in which
non profit organizations
may receive funding to
clean up sites that they own.
Non profit organizations may
apply directly to EPA for
cleanup grants for sites that
they own, In addition,
governmental RLF grant
recipients may use their
funding to award cleanup
subgrants to other eligible
entities, which now includes
certain non profit
organizations. Cleanup grants
and RLF subgrants, unlike
RLF loans, do not need to be
repaid.
Grant Funding Amounts
Eligible governmental
entities may apply for up
$400,000 in assessment
funding-up to $200,000
of which has to be used
to address sites
contaminated by
hazardous substances,
pollutants or
contaminants, and up to
$200,000 of which has to
be used to address sites
contaminated by
petroleum. Applicants may
request a waiver of the
$200,000 site limits up to a
$350,000 site limit, based on
the anticipated level of
-------
contamination, size, or
status of ownership. Due to
budget limitations, no entity
may apply for funding
assessment activities in
excess of $700,000.
Eligible governmental
entities may apply for
up to $1 million for an
initial RLF grant.
Coalitions-groups of
eligible entities-may
apply together under
one grant recipient for
up to $1 million per
eligible entity. Revolving
loan funds generally are
used to provide no-interest
or lower-interest loans for
brownfields cleanups. The
new Brownfields law
requires the applicant to
contribute a 20 percent cost
sharing for RLF awards;
this cost share may be in the
form of money or, labor,
material or services that
would be eligible and
allowable costs under the
RLF grant. Applicants may
requests waivers of the cost
share requirements based on
hardship, as described in the
guideline.
Eligible governmental
entities may apply for up
to $200,000 per site for
cleanup grants for sites
they own. Due to budget
limitations, no entity should
apply for cleanup grants at
more than five sites. Cleanup
grants also require the applicant
to contribute a 20 percent cost
sharing for cleanup grant
awards; this cost share may be
in the form of money, labor,
material or services that would
be eligible and allowable costs
under the cleanup grant..
Applicants may requests
waivers of the cost share
requirements based on
hardship, as described in the
guideline.
Grant Application
Schedule and Details
Initial Proposals must be
postmarked or sent via
registered or tracked mail
to the appropriate
Regional representative by
November 27, 2002 with a
copy to Headquarters.
-------
Applicants are encouraged to
work with their EPA Regional
Brownfields Contacts in the
preparation of their Initial
Proposals.
-------
CERCLA Liability and the Small
Business Liability Relief and
Brownfields Revitalization Act
September 2002
Title I - Small Business
Liability Protection
The new Brownfields Law
provides liability protection
for certain businesses and
municipal waste
contributors to NPL sites:
CERCLA liability
exemption for certain
small volume waste
contributors to NPL sites
(i.e., contributors of less
than 110 gallons or 200
pounds), if waste has not
contributed significantly
to cost of response action.
CERCLA liability
exemption for certain
contributors of municipal
solid waste (MSW)(e.g.,
certain residential
property owners, small
businesses, non-profits), if
MSW has not contributed
significantly to cost of
response action
Shifts court costs and
attorneys fees to a private
party if a private party
loses a Superfund
contribution action
against de micromis or
municipal solid waste exempt
party.
EPA anticipates issuing
guidance related to the de
micromis and MSW exemptions
by December, 2002.
Title II - Brownfields
Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration
- Subtitle B
The new Brownfields Law
provides that, under certain
circumstances, simply owning
contaminated property does not
result in CERCLA liability.
The law clarifies Superfund
liability for:
• Contiguous Property Owners
• Bona Fide Prospective
Purchasers
• Innocent Landowners.
Contiguous Property
Owners: property owners
owning contaminated property
-------
contiguous to a Superfund site
are exempt from CERCLA
liability, if the owner:
is not otherwise liable for
the contamination and is not
affiliated with a liable party
takes reasonable steps with
respect to hazardous
substances on the property,
cooperates and provides
assistance and site access,
complies with land use
controls, site information
requests, and legal notice
requirements
conducts "all appropriate
inquiry" at time of purchase
and demonstrates they did
not know or have reason to
know of contamination.
Prospective Purchasers:
For purchasers buying
contaminated property after
date of enactment, potential
CERCLA liability is limited
to a "windfall lien" for
increase in value of the
property attributable to EPA's
response action, provided the
purchaser:
• is not otherwise liable for
the contamination and is not
affiliated with a liable party
does not impede cleanup,
exercises appropriate care
by taking reasonable steps,
cooperates and provides
assistance and site access,
complies with land use
controls, site information
requests, and legal notice
requirements,
and conducts "all
appropriate inquiries"
prior to purchase
EPA issued guidance on its
approach to implementing
the Bona Fide Prospective
Purchaser amendments
in view of the limitation on
liability for prospective
purchasers. See, Memorandum
from Barry Breen, "Bona Fide
Prospective Purchasers and the
New Amendments to CERCLA."
(May 31, 2002). Prior to the
amendments, prospective
purchasers needed to enter into
prospective purchaser agreements
(PPAs) with EPA to address their
CERCLA liability concerns. In its
May 31 guidance EPA explained
that by providing a statutory
liability limitation, Congress had
made the need for PPAs
unnecessary in most instances and
identified those limited
circumstances where they might
be appropriate.
EPA is planning on issuing
guidance on implementation of
the "windfall lien" provision in
December 2002.
-------
Use of Alternative Dispute
Resolution in Enforcement and
Compliance Activities
September 2001
Introduction
Alternative Dispute Resolu-
tion (ADR) is a tool which
enhances a negotiation pro-
cess and is a standard compo-
nent of EPA's enforcement
and compliance program.
ADR should be considered
at any point when negotiations
are possible. This fact sheet
answers common questions
about the use of ADR in
enforcement and compliance
activities.
What is ADR?
ADR is a short-hand term for
a set of processes which assist
parties in resolving their
disputes quickly and effi-
ciently. Central to each
method of ADR is the use of
an objective third party or
neutral. In this fact sheet the
use of the term "ADR" refers
to all ADR processes. The
methods used by the Agency
include the following:
Convening is the first step in a
dispute resolution process. A
neutral party explores with the
parties whether they are
interested in using ADR, makes
a recommendation about the
most appropriate way to
proceed, and assists the parties
in selecting a neutral.
• Mediation is the primary ADR
tool used by EPA. It is a
voluntary and informal process
in which the disputing parties
select a neutral third party to
assist them in reaching a
negotiated settlement. Since
mediators have no power to
impose a solution on the
parties, they help disputants
shape solutions to meet the
interests and needs of all
parties. In mediation, EPA
retains its control of the case as
well as its settlement authority.
Allocation is the use of third
party-neutrals to assist the
parties in determining their
relative responsibilities for
Superfund site costs.
Fact-finding, often used in
technical disputes, involves the
-------
investigation of issues by a
neutral party who gathers
information and prepares a
summary of key issues. (Fact
finding is often used as part of a
negotiation process.)
Neutral Evaluation is a
process which is useful for
cases involving complex
scientific and technical issues.
A neutral party conducts an
evaluation and provides the
disputants with an assessment
of the strengths and weaknesses
of each party's case and a
prediction about the potential
outcome of the case.
Mini-trial is a process in which
the decision-makers for each
side of a dispute hear a
summary of the best case
presented by the attorneys for
each side. Folio wing the
presentations, the principals
engage in negotiations, often
with the assistance of the
neutral party.
Arbitration is the process in
which a neutral party considers
the facts and arguments
presented by parties in a dispute
and renders a binding or non-
binding decision using
applicable law and procedures.
Facilitation is a process in
which parties with divergent
views use a neutral facilitator to
improve communications and
work toward agreement on a
goal or the solution to a
problem. The facilitator runs
the process, helping the parties
set ground rules, design
meeting agendas, and
communicate more effectively.
Partnering is a collaborative
process in which the
participants commit to work
cooperatively to improve
communications and avoid
disputes in order to achieve a
common goal. Typically, a
neutral helps the participants
create a partnering agreement
that defines how they will
interact and what goals they
seek to achieve.
What is EPA's policy on
the use of ADR in
enforcement actions?
EPA has utilized ADR in
appropriate enforcement and
compliance activities since
1987. The Administrative
Dispute Resolution Act of
1996, (P.L. 104-320), 5
U.S.C. 571 (ADRA), which
encourages the use of ADR in
all federal disputes, strength-
ened EPA's enforcement and
compliance ADR policy.
Each Federal district court is
required to establish its own
ADR program and to encour-
age and promote the use of
-------
ADR in its district (Alterna-
tive Dispute Resolution Act of
1998(P.L. 105-315), 28
U.S.C. 651).
What is EPA's experience
with ADR in enforcement
actions?
The Agency has used ADR to
assist in the resolution of over
200 enforcement-related
disputes to date. ADR has
been used in negotiations
arising under every environ-
mental statute that EPA
enforces. Mediated negotia-
tions have ranged from
two-party Clean Water Act
(CWA) cases to Superfund
disputes involving upwards of
1200 parties.
Participants in the 1990
ADR pilot for Superfund
cases reported the following
benefits:
constructive working
relationships were developed
obstacles to agreement and the
reasons therefor were quickly
identified
mediators helped prevent
stalemates
costs of preparing a case for
DOJ referral were eliminated.
ongoing relationships were
preserved.
What are the benefits of
using ADR in
enforcement actions?
It lowers the transaction costs
for resolving the dispute.
Mediated negotiations tend to
focus more on resolving real
issues, rather than posturing,
and are less likely to get
derailed by personality
conflicts.
In mediation, the parties are
more likely to identify
settlement options that are
tailored to their particular
needs.
It alleviates the time-consuming
burdens on EPA of organizing
negotiations because a third
party neutral is available to
handle these tasks. This is
particularly valuable in multi-
party cases.
How do I know that ADR
is appropriate for my
enforcement case?
If you can answer the follow-
ing questions affirmatively,
then ADR may be appropriate
for your case:
Are there present or foreseeable
difficulties in the negotiation
which will require time or
resources to overcome in order
-------
to reach settlement?
Is your case negotiable, i.e. no
precedent-setting issues are
involved?
Is there enough case
information to substantiate the
violations)?
Is there sufficient time to
negotiate in light of court or
statutory deadlines, or are the
parties willing to sign a tolling
agreement (an understanding
that a statutory deadline for
starting a lawsuit will be
extended)?
What ADR services are
available for
enforcement/compliance
disputes?
Assistance for the use of ADR
for enforcement and compli-
ance cases is available by
phone at any time from the
Headquarters and/or Regional
Enforcement/Compliance
ADR Specialists, identified at
the end of this fact sheet.
EPA has an indefinite services
contract for dispute resolution
services with a management
consulting firm that focuses
on environmental dispute
resolution and public partici-
pation. Through in-house
expertise and contract support
EPA can also provide assis-
tance in: confidential consul-
tation regarding use of ADR
in specific enforcement/
compliance cases; assistance
in the location, selection and
contracting of ADR profes-
sionals; provision of the entire
range of ADR services and
logistical support of consen-
sus building processes.
What funding is available
to pay for EPA's share of
ADR expenses in these
enforcement/compliance
cases?
Funding for ADR services
needs to come from each
Region's extramural funds. In
the Superfund program there
is a delivery order funded and
managed by the Office of Site
Remediation Enforcement
(OSRE) for limited convening
services for enforcement and
compliance disputes.
What contract
mechanisms are available
to obtain ADR services
for enforcement/
compliance related
activities?
The following options are
available: (1) the consensus
and dispute resolution support
-------
services contract managed by
the Consensus and Dispute
Resolution Program (Debbie
Dalton, Project Officer, 202-
564-2913), (2) expedited sole
source contracting authorized
by recent changes to Federal
Acquisition Regulations
(FAR), and (3) the Regional
Enforcement Support Services
(ESS) contract, depending on
the language in the contract.
To date, the dispute resolution
support services contract has
been the primary vehicle used
by the ADR program.
A procurement request and
other contracting documents
must be submitted for each
case to the appropriate con-
tract offi ci al. It take s approxi -
mately 30 days to process the
contracting documents
through the contracts office.
Models of an ADR procure-
ment request and other
contracting documents for
enforcement actions are
available on disk from the
HQ ADR Team or your
regional ADR Specialist.
Each Region should designate
a lead staff contact for con-
tract coordination.
Who manages the
contract with the
selected ADR neutral in
an enforcement/
compliance case?
Each site-specific use of ADR
in an enforcement case re-
quires either a separate con-
tract or task order which is
managed by the nominating
region. To establish a contract
or task order, the contracts
office requires the designation
of a Task Order Project
Officer (TOPO). The Reme-
dial Project Manager (RPM),
On Scene Coordinator
(OSC), or other person famil-
iar with the case may serve
as a TOPO.
What are the
requirements for
expedited sole source
hiring of neutrals in
enforcement/compliance
cases?
The FAR allows for expedited
sole source contracting in
enforcement actions when
the anticipated value of
neutral services does not
exceed $2500, and the price
is reasonable1. Contracts
-------
where the anticipated value
exceeds $2500, but is less
than $100,000 are set aside
for small business concerns2.
If the TOPO receives only one
offer from a small business
concern, the contract should
be awarded to that firm. If
there are no acceptable
offers, the set aside is with-
drawn. Sole source contract-
ing can then be used if only
one source is reasonably
available3, but the TOPO
must provide a written expla-
nation for the absence of
competition4.
How do I identify
appropriate neutrals for
my enforcement/
compliance case?
EPA has developed a National
Roster of Environmental
Dispute Resolution and
Consensus Building Profes-
sionals in conjunction with
the U.S. Institute for Environ-
mental Conflict Resolution
(USIECR)5. This Roster will
be one of several sources of
information which federal
agencies can use to identify
appropriately experienced
conflict resolution profession-
als for use in resolving envi-
ronmental and natural re-
source disputes or issues in
controversy under the ADRA
of 1996 and the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act of 1996. The
Roster can be used to identify
neutrals for an enforcement
action "when the ADR Ser-
vices Contract is not appropri-
ate, cost effective or timely."
Roster information is avail-
able on the USIECR website,
http: //www. ecr. gov. ADR
specialists and others who
have been trained will be able
to obtain information from the
Roster for case teams.
How does a case team in
an enforcement/
compliance activity
select and contract with
an ADR neutral for his/
her services? How long
does this take?
The selection of an appropri-
ate ADR neutral for an en-
forcement/compliancecase is
by agreement of all parties to
the dispute. The regional/
DOJ case team represents the
U.S. in this decision. Assis-
tance in identifying and
considering appropriate
neutrals for an enforcement
action is available from the
-------
HQ ADR Team or through
EPA's contractor.
The services of the selected
ADR neutral are obtained by
all the parties to a dispute by
entering a contract with the
neutral. The contract, gener-
ally called a "mediation
agreement," covers arrange-
ments for sharing and paying
the mediator's fees, the role of
the mediator, confidentiality
issues, and the right of any
party to withdraw from the
mediation. An EPA approved
model mediation agreement is
available on disk from your
regional ADR Specialist or
from the HQ ADR Team. You
should use this as the basis for
your negotiations in enforce-
ment cases.
The agreement is negotiated
by the case team and the
private parties, with assis-
tance, if needed, from the HQ
ADR Team or an ADR expert
from Marasco Newton.
Experience has shown that the
model agreement is generally
acceptable to private parties
and it often takes no longer
than two weeks to obtain a
signed agreement.
Does a Region have the
authority to sign the
agreement with the ADR
professional?
Yes. Once the funding has
been committed by the
Agency, the Region, generally
the staff attorney, signs the
agreement for EPA.
How much does it
usually cost to use ADR
in an enforcement/
compliance case?
The cost of ADR services in
an enforcement/compliance
case is determined by several
factors, including the ADR
professional's fees and travel,
costs of meeting space, and
the length of settlement
discussions. All costs associ-
ated with the selected ADR
process are shared equitably
among the parties. EPA staff
1. FAR Subpart 6.001 (a)
FAR Subpart 13.202 (a) (2)
2. FAR Subpart 19.5
3. FAR Subpart 13.106-1 (b)( 1)
4. FAR Subpart 13.106-3(a)(2)
5. The Institute is affiliated with the
Morris K. Udall Foundation in
Tucson^Vrizona
-------
should keep the Agency's
share payment commensurate
with EPA's interest in the
ADR process. At present, the
Agency may pay a portion of
the costs of the convening
process and up to 50% of the
ADR costs in an enforcement/
compliance activity, where the
Agency is a party to the
selected ADR process. The
Agency may, in appropriate
circumstances, help to defray
private parties' costs of
obtaining ADR services in
Superfund allocation
deliberations. The Agency
may pay up to 20% of the
costs of ADR services in
these situations.
The average costs of some
specific ADR processes are as
follows:
Allocation is generally between
$50,000 and $75,000;
Convening costs are
approximately $25,000; and
Community involvement cases
are usually between $100,000
and $150,000 depending on the
number of stakeholders and the
complexity of the issues.
Why must the costs
associated with using
ADR in enforcement/
compliance activities be
shared equitably by the
parties?
To assure the neutrality of the
ADR professional involved, it
is important that all parties to
the dispute share the costs to
the greatest extent possible.
This creates a more equal
ground and prevents parties
from feeling any bias in an
enforcement/compliance
action. Some parties can
provide in-kind contributions
towards the cost of ADR when
they are unable to provide an
equal share of the costs. In all
other cases, EPA must share
the costs of a neutral's services
with the other parties to an
enforcement/compliance
dispute.
Are there specific
guidelines for the use of
arbitration in EPA
enforcement and
compliance activities?
Section 575 of the ADRA
permits the use of binding
arbitration in an enforcement
action with the consent of all
parties and eliminates the
Agency's right to vacate an
award issued within 30 days.
-------
However, prior to using
binding arbitration, the
Agency must have issued
guidance on the appropriate
use of arbitration6. The act
has two other prerequisites: 1)
arbitration agreements7 must
specify a maximum award,
and 2) the person offering to
use arbitration must have
settlement authority. At
present EPA may enter into
binding arbitration for
Superfund cost recovery
claims not exceeding
$500,000 (excluding interest)
under CERCLA Section
122(h)(2), 42U.S.C.
9622(h)(2) and 40 C.RR. 304
(1996). This regulation
requires that the Administrator
and one or more Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs)
submit a joint request for
arbitration.
Are government
payments made to an
ADR professional in a
Superfund action tracked
and recoverable as site
costs for cost recovery
purposes?
Expenditures by the Agency
in support of the use of ADR
in a Superfund action are cost
recoverable expenses,
reimbursement of which may
be obtained through regional
settlements or legal action.
Regions may exercise their
enforcement discretion
regarding recovery of ADR
expenditures. Each ADR case
is assigned a separate task
order or contract to allow for
site tracking of ADR
expenses.
Is training available for
the use of ADR in
enforcement actions?
Yes. A one day overview
training on the use of ADR in
enforcement negotiations is
offered in all of the regions.
Furthermore, there are ADR
components in several other
popular EPA training courses.
If you are interested in the
training schedule for the
current year call NETI at
(202-564-6069).
6. 40 C.F.R. 304
7. Agreements to arbitrate are
enforceable pursuant to 9 U.S.C. 4
-------
Enforcement/Compliance ADR Specialists
NAME PHONE* FAX*
Region 1
Ellie Tonkin
Marcia Lamel
Doug Thompson
Andrea Simpson
Catherine Garypie
Region 2
Tom Lieber
Janet Conetta
Region 3
Pat Hilsinger
Joan A. Johnson
Region 4
Lisa Ellis
Region 5
JohnTielsch
Beth Henning
Region 6
Jim Dahl
Manisha Patel
Region 7
Cheryle Micinski
Region 8
Maureen O'Reilly
Karen Kellen
Arnie Ondarza
Region 9
Kim Muratore
Marie Rongone
Allyn Stern
Region 10
TedYackulic
617/918-1726
918-1778
918-1543
918-1738
918-1540
212/637-3158
637-4417
215/814-2642
814-2619
404/562-9541
312/353-7447
31 2/886-5892
214/665-2151
665-2770
913/551-7274
303/312-6402
31 2-651 8
31 2-6777
41 5/744-2373
744-1313
744-1372
206/553-1218
HQ Enforcement/Compliance ADR
David Batson 202/564-51 03
Lee Scharf 564-5143
Phil Page 564-421 1
918-1809
918-1809
918-1809
918-1809
918-1809
637-31 1 5
637-4429
814-2601
814-3001
562-9486
886-71 60
353-91 76
665-21 82
665-6660
551 -7925
312-6409
312-6953
312-7025
744-1917
744-1041
744-1041
553-01 63
Team
564-0093
564-0091
564-0091
-------
Policy Toward Owners of Property
Containing Contaminated Aquifers
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
November 1995
This fact sheet summarizes a new EPA policy regarding
groundwater contamination. The "Policy Toward Owners of
Property Containing Contaminated Aquifers" was issued as
part of EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative
which helps states, communities, and other stakeholders in
economic redevelopment to work together in a timely manner
to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse
brownfields. Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used
industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or
redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environ-
mental contamination.
EPA issued this policy to help owners of property to which
groundwater contamination has migrated or is likely to mi-
grate from a source outside the property. This fact sheet is
based on EPA's interpretation of the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund) and existing EPA
guidance. Under the policy, EPA will not take action to com-
pel such property owners to perform cleanups or to reimburse
the agency for cleanup costs. EPA may also consider de
minimis settlements with such owners if they are threatened
with law suits by third parties.
Background
Approximately eighty-five percent of the sites listed on the
National Priorities List involve some degree of groundwater
contamination. The effects of such contamination are often
widespread because of natural subsurface processes such as
-------
infiltration and groundwater
flow. It is sometimes difficult
to determine the source of
groundwater contamination.
Under Section 107(a)(l) of
CERCLA (also found at 42
United States Code §
9607(a)(l)), any "owner" of
contaminated property is
normally liable regardless of
fault. This section of
CERCLA creates uncertainty
about the liability of owners
of land containing contami-
nated aquifers who did not
cause the contamination. This
uncertainty makes potential
buyers and lenders hesitant to
invest in property containing
contaminated groundwater.
The intent of the Contami-
nated Aquifer Policy is to
lower the barriers to the
transfer of property by reduc-
ing the uncertainty regarding
future liability. It is EPA's
hope that by clarifying its
approach towards these
landowners, third parties will
act accordingly.
Policy Summary
EPA will exercise its enforce-
ment discretion by not taking
action against a property
owner to require clean up or
the payment of clean-up costs
where: 1) hazardous sub-
stances have come to the
property solely as the result
of subsurface migration in an
aquifer from a source outside
the property, and 2) the
landowner did not cause,
contribute to, or aggravate
the release or threat of
release of any hazardous
substances. Where a property
owner is brought into third
party litigation, EPA will
consider entering a de minimis
settlement.
Elements of the
Policy
There are three major issues
which must be analyzed to
determine whether a particular
landowner will be protected
from liability by this policy:
• the landowner's role in the
contamination of the aquifer;
• the landowner's relationship
to the person who contam-
inated the aquifer; and
• the existence of any ground-
water wells on the land-
owner's property that affect
the spread of contamination
within the aquifer.
-------
Landowner's Role in the
Contamination of the
Aquifer
A landowner seeking protec-
tion from liability under this
policy must not have caused
or contributed to the source of
contamination. However,
failure to take steps to miti-
gate or address groundwater
contamination, such as con-
ducting groundwater investi-
gations or installing ground-
water remediation systems,
will not, in the absence of
exceptional circumstances,
preclude a landowner from the
protection of this policy.
Landowner's
Relationship to the
Person who Caused the
Aquifer Contamination
First, this policy requires that
the original contamination
must not have been caused by
an agent or employee of the
landowner. Second, the
property owner must not have
a contractual relationship with
the polluter. A contractual
relationship includes a deed,
land contract, or instrument
transferring possession. Third,
Superfund requires that the
landowner inquire into the
previous ownership and use of
the land to minimize liability.
Thus, if the landowner buys a
property from the person who
caused the original contami-
nation after the contamination
occurred, the policy will not
apply if the landowner knew
of the disposal of hazardous
substances at the time the
property was acquired. For
example, where the property
at issue was originally part of
a larger parcel owned by a
person who caused the release
and the property is subdivided
and sold to the current owner,
who is aware of the pollu-
tion and the subdivision,
there may be a direct or
indirect "contractual relation-
ship" between the person that
caused the release and the
current landowner. In this
instance, the owner would not
be protected by the policy.
In contrast, land contracts or
instruments transferring title
are not considered contractual
relationships under CERCLA
if the land was acquired after
the disposal of the hazardous
substances and the current
landowner did not know, and
had no reason to know, that
-------
any hazardous substance had
migrated into the land.
The Presence of a
Ground water Wei I on
the Landowner's
Property and its
Effects on the Spread
of Contamination in
the Aquifer
Since a groundwater well may
affect the migration of con-
tamination in an aquifer,
EPA's policy requires a fact-
specific analysis of the cir-
cumstances, including, but not
limited to, the impact of the
well and/or the owner's use of
it on the spread or contain-
ment of the contamination in
the aquifer.
Common Questions
Regarding Application of
the Policy
"If a prospective buyer
knows of aquifer contamina-
tion on a piece of property
at the time of purchase, is he
or she automatically liable
for clean-up costs?"
No. In such a case the buyer's
liability depends on the
seller's involvement in the
aquifer contamination. If the
seller would have qualified for
protection under this policy,
the buyer will be protected.
For example, if the seller of
the property was a landowner
who bought the property
without knowledge, did not
contribute to the contamina-
tion of the aquifer and had no
contractual relationship with
the polluter, then the buyer
may take advantage of this
policy, despite knowledge of
the aquifer contamination.
In contrast, if the seller has a
contractual relationship with
the polluter and the buyer
knows of the contamination,
then this policy will not
protect the buyer.
"If an original parcel of
property contains one
section which has been
contaminated by the seller
and another uncontami-
nated section which is
threatened with contamina-
tion migrating through the
aquifer, can a buyer be
protected under the policy if
he or she buys the threatened
section of the property?"
-------
The purchase of the threat-
ened parcel separate from the
contaminated parcel estab-
lishes a contractual relation-
ship between the buyer and
the person responsible for the
threat. This policy will not
protect such a buyer unless
the buyer can establish that he
or she did not know of the
pollution at the time of the
purchase and had no reason to
know of the pollution. To
establish such lack of knowl-
edge the buyer must prove
that at the time he acquired
the property he inquired into
the previous ownership and
uses of the property.
waste at a particular site. To
be eligible for such a settle-
ment, the landowner must not
have handled the hazardous
waste and must not have
contributed to its release or
the threat of its release. Once
the EPA enters into a
de minimis settlement with a
landowner, third parties may
not sue that landowner for the
costs of clean-up operations.
Whether or not the Agency
issues a de minimis settlement,
EPA may seek the landowner's
full cooperation (including
access to the property) in
evaluating and implementing
cleanup at the site.
Protection from
Third Party Law Suits
Finally, EPA will consider de
minimis settlements with
landowners who meet the
requirements of this policy if
a landowner has been sued or
is threatened with third-party
suits. A de minimis settlement
is an agreement between the
EPA and a landowner who
may be liable for clean up of a
small portion of the hazardous
For further information contact:
This policy was issued on May 24,1995
and published in the Federal Register on
July 3,1995 (volume 60, page 34790).
You may order a copy of the policy from
the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of
Commerce, 5825 Port Royal Rd.,
Springfield, VA 22161.
Orders must reference NTIS accession
number PB96-109145.
-------
For telephone orders or further
information on placing an order:
callNTISat
(703)487-4650
for regular service, or
(800) 553-NTIS for rush service.
For orders via e-maMntemet, send to
the following address:
orders@ntis. fedworld. go v
For more information about the
Contaminated Aquifer Policy, call
Elisabeth Freed, (202) 564-5117, Office
of Site Remediation Enforcement.
-------
The Effect of Superfund on
Involuntary Acquisitions of
Contaminated Property by
Government Entities
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
December 1995
Units of state, local, and federal government sometimes invol-
untarily acquire contaminated property as a result of perform-
ing their governmental duties. Government entities often
wonder whether these acquisitions will result in Superfund
liability. This fact sheet summarizes EPA's policy on Superfund
enforcement against government entities that involuntarily
acquire contaminated property. This fact sheet also describes
some types of government actions that EPA believes qualify for
a liability exemption or a defense to Superfund liability.
Introduction
EPA's Brownfields Economic
Redevelopment Initiative is
designed to help states,
communities, and other
stakeholders in economic
redevelopment to work to-
gether in a timely manner to
prevent, assess, safely clean
up, and sustainably reuse
brownfields. Brownfields are
abandoned, idled, or under-
used industrial and commer-
cial facilities where expansion
or redevelopment is compli-
cated by real or perceived
environmental contamination.
Many municipalities and other
government entities are eager
for brownfields to be redevel-
oped but often hesitate to take
any steps at these facilities
because they fear that they
will incur Superfund liability.
This fact sheet answers
common questions about the
effect of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA, commonly
known as Superfund, and set
forth at 42 United States Code
-------
beginning at Section 9601) on
involuntary acquisitions by
government entities. EPA
hopes that this fact sheet will
facilitate government entities'
plans for redevelopment of
brownfields and the "broker-
age" of those facilities to
prospective purchasers.
What is an involuntary
acquisition?
EPA considers an acquisition
to be "involuntary" if it meets
the following test:
• The government's interest in,
and ultimate ownership of,
the property exists only
because the actions of a
non-governmental party
give rise to the govern-
ment's legal right to control
or take title to the property.
For example, a government's
acquisition of property for
which a citizen failed to pay
taxes is an involuntary acqui-
sition because the citizen's tax
delinquency gives rise to the
government's legal right to
take title to the property.
Will a government entity
that involuntarily acquires
contaminated property be
liable under CERCLA?
To protect certain parties from
liability, CERCLA contains
both liability exemptions and
affirmative defenses to liabil-
ity. A party who is exempt
from CERCLA liability with
respect to a specified act
cannot be held liable under
CERCLA for committing that
act. A party who believes that
he or she has an affirmative
defense to CERCLA liability
must prove so by a preponder-
ance of the evidence.
After it involuntarily acquires
contaminated property, a unit
of state or local government
will generally be exempt from
CERCLA liability as an
owner or operator. In addition,
the unit of state or local
government will have a
somewhat redundant affirma-
tive defense to CERCLA
liability known as a "third-
party" defense, provided other
requirements for the defense,
which are described below,
are met. A federal government
entity that involuntarily
acquires contaminated prop-
-------
erty and meets the require-
ments described below will
have a third-party defense to
CERCLA liability.
The requirements for a third-
party defense to CERCLA
liability are the following:
• The contamination occurred
before the government entity
acquired the property;
• The government entity
exercised due care with
respect to the contamination
(e.g., did not cause,
contribute to, or exacerbate
the contamination); and
• The government entity took
precautions against certain
acts of the party that caused
the contamination and
against the consequences of
those acts.
A government entity will not
have a CERCLA liability
exemption or defense if it has
caused or contributed to the
release or threatened release
of contamination from the
property. As a result, acquir-
ing property involuntarily
does not unconditionally or
permanently insulate a gov-
ernment entity from CERCLA
liability. Government entities
should therefore ensure that
they do not cause or contrib-
ute to the actual or potential
release of hazardous sub-
stances at facilities that they
have acquired involuntarily.
For more information, see 42
U.S.C. 9601(20) (D),
9607(b)(3), and 9601(35)(A)
and (D).
It is also important to note
that the liability exemption
and defense described above
do not shield government
entities from any potential
liability that they may have as
"generators" or "transporters"
of hazardous substances under
CERCLA. For additional
information, see 42 U.S.C.
9607(a).
What are some examples of
involuntary acquisitions?
CERCLA provides a non-
exhaustive list of examples of
involuntary acquisitions by
government entities. These
examples include acquisi-
tions following abandon-
ment, bankruptcy, tax
delinquency, escheat (the
transfer of a deceased person's
property to the government
when there are no competent
-------
heirs to the property), and
other circumstances in
which the government
involuntarily obtains title by
virtue of its function as a
sovereign.
What is EPA's official
policy regarding CERCLA
enforcement against
government entities that
involuntarily acquire
contaminated property?
In 1992, EPA issued its Rule
on Lender Liability Under
CERCLA ("Rule"), 57 Fed-
eralRegister 18344 (April 29,
1992). The Rule included a
discussion of involuntary
acquisitions by government
entities. In 1994, the Rule was
invalidated by the court.
In September 1995, EPA and
the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) issued their
"Policy on CERCLA Enforce-
ment Against Lenders and
Government Entities that
Acquire Property Involun-
tarily" ("Lender Policy"). In
the document, EPA and DOJ
reaffirm their intentions to
follow the provisions of the
Rule as enforcement policy.
The Lender Policy advises
EPA and DOJ personnel to
consult both the Rule and its
preamble while exercising
their enforcement discretion
with respect to government
entities that acquire property
involuntarily. Most of the
relevant portions of the Rule
and preamble have been
summarized in this fact sheet.
Under the Lender Policy, EPA
has expanded the examples
listed in CERCLA by describ-
ing the following categories of
involuntary acquisitions:
Acquisitions made by
government entities acting as a
conservator or receiver
pursuant to a clear and direct
statutory mandate or
regulatory authority (such as
acquisition of the security
interests or properties of failed
private lending or depository
institutions);
Acquisitions by government
entities through foreclosure
and its equivalents while
administering a governmental
loan, loan guarantee, or loan
insurance program; and
Acquisitions by government
entities pursuant to seizure or
forfeiture authority.
Similar to the examples listed
in CERCLA EPAs list of
-------
categories of involuntary
acquisitions is non-exhaustive.
To determine whether an
activity not listed in CERCLA
or under the Lender Policy is
an "involuntary acquisition,"
one should analyze whether
the actions of a non-govern-
mental party give rise to the
government's legal right to
control or take title to the
property.
If a government entity takes
some sort of voluntary
action before acquiring the
property, can the acquisition
still be considered "involun-
tary"?
Yes. Involuntary acquisitions,
including the examples listed
in CERCLA, generally re-
quire some sort of discretion-
ary, volitional action by the
government. A government
entity need not be completely
"passive" in order for the
acquisition to be considered
"involuntary" for purposes of
CERCLA. For further discus-
sion, see 57 Fed. Reg. 18372
and 18381.
that involuntarily acquires
contaminated property be
liable under CERCLA to
potentially responsible
parties and other non-
federal entities?
If a unit of state or local
government involuntarily
acquires property through any
of the means listed in
CERCLA, it will be exempt
from CERCLA liability as an
owner or operator. In addition,
any government entity will
have a third-party defense to
CERCLA liability if all
relevant requirements for that
defense are met (see above).
If a government entity ac-
quires property through any
other means, it appears likely-
based on the way that courts
have treated lender issues
during the last few years - that
a court would apply principles
and rationale that are consis-
tent with EPA and DOJ's
Lender Policy. Analysis of
these acquisitions may require
an examination of case law
and state or local laws.
Will a government entity If someone dies and leaves
-------
contaminated property to a
government entity, is this
considered an involuntary
acquisition?
No, this type of property
transfer is not considered an
involuntary acquisition under
CERCLA. However, CERCLA
provides a third-party defense
for parties that acquire prop-
erty by inheritance or bequest
(a gift given through a will).
Thus, a government entity that
acquires property in this
manner will have a third-party
defense to CERCLA liability if
all relevant requirements of
that defense are met and the
government entity has not
caused or contributed to the
release or threatened release of
contamination from the prop-
erty (see above). For more
information, see 42 U.S.C.
9607(b)(3) and 9601 (35)(A)
and (D).
Will a government entity that
uses its power of eminent
domain be liable under
CERCLA?
After a government entity
acquires property through the
exercise of eminent domain
(the government's power to
take private property for
public use) by purchase or
condemnation, it will have a
third-party defense to
CERCLA liability if all
requirements for that defense
are met (see above). For more
information, see 42 U.S.C.
9607(b)(3) and 9601(35)(A).
Will parties that purchase
contaminated property from
government entities also be
exempt from CERCLA
liability?
No. Nothing in CERCLA
allows non-governmental
parties to be exempt from
liability after they knowingly
purchase contaminated prop-
erty. However, EPA encour-
ages prospective purchasers of
contaminated property to
contact their state environ-
mental agencies to discuss
these properties on a site-by-
site basis. At sites where an
EPA action has been taken, is
ongoing, or is anticipated to
be undertaken, various tools,
including "prospective pur-
chaser agreements," may be
an option.
-------
For further information:
The Lender Policy was published in the
Federal Register in Volume 60, Number
237, at pages 63517 to 63519
(December 11,1995).
You may order copies of the Lender
Policy from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS), U.S.
Department of Commerce, 5285 Port
Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161.
Orders must reference NTIS accession
number PB95-234498. For telephone
orders or further information on placing
an order, call NTIS at 703-487-4650 for
regular service or 800-553-NTIS for
rush service. For orders via e-mail/
Internet, send to the following address
orders @ ntis.fedworld.gov
If you have questions about this fact
sheet, contact Bob Kenney of EPA's
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
at (202) 564-5127.
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
132
-------
Using Supplemental Environmental
Projects to Facilitate Brownfields
Re-development
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
330-F-98-001
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
Policy and Program Evaluation Division 2273G
September 1998
In April 1998, EPA issued the
final "Supplemental Environ-
mental Projects Policy." In
that policy EPA encourages
the use of Supplemental
Environmental Projects in the
settlement of environmental
enforcement actions. Using
SEPs to assess or cleanup
brownfield properties is an
effective way to enhance the
environmental quality and
economic vitality of areas in
which the enforcement actions
were necessary,
Introduction
In settlements of environmen-
tal enforcement cases, defen-
dant/respondents often pay
civil penalties. EPA encour-
ages parties to include
Supplemental Environmental
Projects (SEPs) in these
settlements and will take
SEPs into account in setting
appropriate penalties. While
penalties play an important
role in deterring environmen-
tal and public health viola-
tions, SEPs can play an
additional role in securing
significant environmental and
public health protection and
improvement. EPA's final
Supplemental Environmental
Projects Policy (SEP Policy)
describes seven categories of
SEPs, the legal guidelines for
designing such projects, and
the methodology for calculat-
ing penalty credits. In certain
cases, SEPs may facilitate the
reuse of "brownfield" prop-
erty. This fact sheet answers
common questions about how
SEPs can be used in the
brownfields context.
-------
What are Brownfields?
EPA defines brownfields as
abandoned, idled, or under-
used industrial and commer-
cial facilities where expansion
or redevelopment is compli-
cated by real or perceived
environmental contamination.
In many cases assessment of
the environmental condition
of a property is all that is
necessary to spur its reuse.
Through the Brownfields
Economic Development
Initiative, EPA has developed
a number of tools to prevent,
assess, safely cleanup and
promote the sustainable reuse
of brownfields. SEPs are one
of the tools that can be used at
brownfields properties.
What is a SEP?
A SEP is an environmentally
beneficial project that a
defendant/respondent agrees
to undertake in settlement of a
civil penalty action, but that
the defendant/respondent is
not otherwise legally required
to perform. In return, a per-
centage of the SEP's cost is
considered as a factor in
establishing the amount of a
final cash penalty. SEPs
enhance the environmental
quality of communities that
have been put at risk due to
the violation of an environ-
mental law.
Meeting Legal
Requirements
The SEP Policy has been
carefully structured to ensure
that each SEP negotiated by
EPA is within the Agency's
authority and consistent with
statutory and Constitutional
requirements. Although all of
the legal requirements in the
Policy must be met when
considering a SEP at a
brownfield, the following
requirements are particularly
important:
SEPs at Brownfields Cannot
Include Action that the
Defendant/Respondent is
Otherwise Legally Required
to Perform
Activities at a brownfield site
for which the defendant/
respondent is otherwise
legally required to perform
under federal, state, or local
law or regulation cannot
constitute a SEP. This
restriction includes actions
that the defendant/respondent
-------
is likely to be required to
perform (1) as injunctive
relief in any action brought by
EPA or another regulatory
agency, or (2) as part of an
order or existing settlement in
another legal action. This
restriction does not pertain to
actions that a regulatory
agency could compel the
defendant/respondent to
undertake if the Agency is
unlikely to exercise that
authority.
As a general rule, if a party
owns a brownfield or is
responsible for the primary
environmental degradation at
a site, assessment or cleanup
activities cannot constitute a
SEP.
SEPs at Brownfield Require
an Adequate Nexus between
the Violation and the Project
The SEP Policy requires that a
relationship, or nexus, exist
between the violation and the
proposed project. A SEP at a
brownfield will generally
satisfy the nexus requirement
if the action enhances the
overall public health or
environmental quality of the
area put at risk by the viola-
tion.
A SEP is not required to be at
the same facility where the
violation occurred provided
that it is within the same
ecosystem or within the
immediate geographical area.
In general, the nexus require-
ment will be satisfied if the
brownfield is within a 50 mile
radius of the site from which
the violation occurred. How-
ever, location alone is not
sufficient to satisfy the nexus
requirement - the environment
where the brownfield is
located must be affected or
potentially threatened by the
violation.
A relationship between the
statutory authority for the
penalty and the nature of the
SEP is not required in order
for the nexus test to be met.
Therefore, the violation need
not relate to hazardous waste
or contaminated properties in
order for EPA to consider a
SEP at a brownfield. (e.g., in
the case of a Clean Air Act
violation, EPA could approve
a SEP at a brownfield).
-------
SEPs at Brownfields Cannot
include Actions that the
Federal Government is
Likely to Undertake or
Compel Another to Undertake
If EPA or another federal
agency has a statutory obliga-
tion to assess, investigate, or
take other response actions at
a brownfield, or to issue an
order compelling another to
take such action, the Agency
may not negotiate a SEP
whereby the defendant/
respondent carries out those
activities.
As a general rule, SEPs are
inappropriate at the following
site types because of EPA's
statutory obligations:
sites on the National Priorities
List under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), § 105, 40 CFR
Part 300, Appendix B;
sites where the federal
government is planning or
conducting a removal action
pursuant to CERCLA § 104(a)
and the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan, 40
CFR § 300.415; and
sites for which the defendant/
respondent or other party would
likely be ordered to perform an
assessment, response, or
remediation activity pursuant to
CERCLA § 106, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), § 3013, § 7003, §
3008(h), the Clean Water Act
(CWA) § 311, and other federal
law.
SEPs may be Performed at
Brownfields Involuntarily
Acquired by Municipalities
As stated above, if EPA would
likely issue an order compel-
ling a Party to cleanup a
brownfield, such remedial
action cannot be the subject of
a SEP. Pursuant to the portion
of the CERCLA Lender
Liability Rule addressing
involuntary acquisitions, 40
C.RR. § 300.115, the Agency
will not issue a remediation
order to a municipality that
has involuntarily acquired a
brownfield even if the Agency
would otherwise issue such an
order to a private owner.
Therefore, if
(1) a brownfield is acquired
involuntarily by a local
government,
(2) there are no other potential
liable parties, and
-------
(3) the known level of
contamination would not
compel the Agency to take
action itself,
a SEP at this property would
be appropriate.
SEPs May Be Limited at
Brownfields that Received
Federal Funds
A SEP cannot provide a
municipality, state, or other
entity that has received a
federal Brownfields Assess-
ment Demonstration Pilot or
other federal brownfields
grant with additional funds to
perform a specific task identi-
fied within the assistance
agreement. If a defendant/
respondent proposes a SEP
whereby the party provides
money to a local government
to assess or cleanup a
brownfield, the municipality
must not have received a
federal grant to carry out the
same work. Similarly, a
defendant/respondent cannot
on its own undertake assess-
ment or other response work
at a brownfield when a grant
recipient has received federal
funds to undertake the same
project. A SEP could, how-
ever, include additional
cleanup activities at a site so
long as those activities are not
the same as those performed
with federal brownfield
funding. For example, at a site
which a federal Brownfields
Targeted Site Assessment is
performed, a SEP that cleans
up the same site would be an
appropriate project (provided
that a CERCLA104(a) re-
moval action is not war-
ranted).
Selecting an Appropriate
SEP Activity for a
Brownfield Site
The SEP Policy identifies two
categories of SEPs that are
appropriate for brownfields.
Environmental Quality
Assessment Projects
In general terms, environ-
mental quality assessments
involve investigating or
monitoring the environmental
media at a property. To be
eligible as SEPs, such activi-
ties must be conducted in
accordance with recognized
protocols, if applicable, for
the type of work to be under-
taken.
-------
Assessment projects may not,
as indicated, include work that
the federal government would
undertake itself or issue an
order to accomplish. There-
fore if a SEP involves an
assessment of site conditions
at a brownfield, the site must
not be one where EPA is
planning or conducting
assessment activities. Both
CERCLIS and EPA's Pre-
CERCLIS Screening Guid-
ance are useful to determine
whether a federal assessment
is warranted or planned.
Environmental Restoration
Projects
For sites at which contamina-
tion does exist, but where an
EPA response action or order
to a party is not warranted, a
SEP may involve removing or
remediating contaminated
media or material. Restoration
SEPs can involve restoring
natural environments, such as
ecosystems, or man-made
environments, such as facili-
ties and buildings. Creating
conservation land, such as
transforming a former landfill
into wilderness land may be
an appropriate SEP. The
removal of substances that the
federal government does not
have clear authority to ad-
dress, such as contained
asbestos or lead paint, may
also constitute an appropriate
restoration project.
Community Input
No one can judge the value to
a community of an assessment
or cleanup project at a
brownfield better than the
community in which the site
is located. Local communities
are the most affected by
environmental violations, and
have the most to gain by SEPs
that address their concerns.
Therefore, in appropriate
cases local communities
should be afforded an oppor-
tunity to comment on and
contribute to the design of
proposed SEPs at brownfield
sites. Accordingly, Regions
are encouraged to promote
public involvement in accor-
dance with the Community
Input procedures set forth
within the SEP Policy.
Evaluation Checklist for
SEPs at Brownfields
On the next page, two ex-
-------
amples are provided to
demonstrate typical propos-
als Regions may receive
from parties that wish
conduct SEPs at
brownfields. One of the
proposals would be ap-
proved and the other would
not. A checklist of questions
along with answers is
provided to demonstrate the
analysis Regions should
apply when considering
such requests.
For further information contact:
If you have any questions regarding
this fact sheet, please contact the
Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement at (202) 564-5100. To
access the SEP Policy on the internet,
open page: http://epa.gov/compliance/
resources/policies/cleanup/superfund/
proj-brownf-mem.pdf
For further information about EPA's
Brownfield Economic Development
Initiative go to page http://
www.epa.gov/brownfields
Hypothetical A:
The Company A owns and operates a
manufacturing facility in downtown
Cityville. The company uses solvents
as part of its manufacturing process.
During its operation, Company A
discharges wastewater into the
Running River. EPA alleges that on at
least one occasion, the level of
solvents in the wastewater exceeded
the level specified in EPA's effluent
the level specified in EPA's effluent
standards under the Clean Water Act.
EPA filed a civil complaint seeking
penalties for the CWA violation.
Company A proposed doing a SEP to
partly reduce the penalty. The project
involves assessing the environmental
conditions of a nearby abandoned lot.
The lot is owned not by the Company,
but by the Cityville government,
which obtained title from the previous
owner via tax foreclosure. To date,
Cityville has been attempting to
interest developers in the property but
to no avail due to concerns regarding
possible contamination from a prior
industrial operation at the lot. To
determine the extent of contamina-
tion, Cityville recently received a
federal Brownfields Assessment
Demonstration Pilot.
Hypothetical B:
Company B owns and operates a
factory in downtown Springfield. EPA
conducted an inspection of the
factory's air emissions and determined
that the Company has violated certain
Clean Air Act (CAA) standards
resulting in the release of air pollut-
ants into the nearby neighborhood.
EPA filed a civil complaint seeking
penalties for the CAA violations.
Company B proposed doing a SEP
that involves the cleanup of debris at
an abandoned parcel located several
blocks away, downwind from
Company B's factory. The lot is filled
with used tires and abandoned trash,
and is infested with vermin. The lot is
the site of a former bakery which long
ago went bankrupt. There is no
history of any past industrial opera-
tion on-site.
-------
CHECKLIST
• Does the project contribute to the revitalization of an abandoned, idled, or under-used
industrial or commercial property where redevelopment has been complicated by real or
perceived environmental contamination?
A. Yes. Conducting soil sampling will help revitalize the abandoned lot because it will resolve the
questionable environmental condition of the property that has discouraged developers.
B. Yes. Cleaning up the used tires and trash and addressing the vermin problem at this former
bakery site will make the property more attractive to developers.
• Does the project include actions that the defendant/respondent would otherwise likely be
required to perform under federal, state, or local law or regulation? Is there a court or
administrative order or existing settlement agreement that would obligate the defendant/
respondent to undertake the proposed project?
A. No. Company A does not own the property, and there is no reason to suspect that Company A
would be responsible for any contamination that may be discovered at the site.
B. No. Company B does not own the property, and there is no reason to suspect that the
company would be required under federal, state, or local law to remove debris from the site.
• Is there an adequate nexus between the violation and the brownfield? Is the project
within the same ecosystem or within a 50 mile radius of the facility where the violation
occurred?
A. Yes. The site is located close to the Company's facility, and the proposed SEP addresses the
same ecosystem and human population threatened by the Company's wastewater discharge.
B. Yes. The abandoned parcel is located downwind of Company B's factory. The proposed SEP
addresses the same ecosystem and human population threatened by the illegal air emissions.
• Does the SEP address environmental conditions that the federal government is statutorily
obligated to either address itself or order another to address? Is the site on CERCLA's
National Priorities List? Is the Agency likely to conduct a removal under CERCLA, or might
the Agency order any party to perform remediation activity pursuant to CERCLA, RCRA, or
the CWA?
A. No. There is no indication that EPA has documented any contamination at the site or would
investigate the abandoned lot. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the Agency would
consider conducting an investigation or removal action or compel any party to undertake such
activities.
B. No. There is no indication that the federal government has a statutory obligation to remove
debris from the abandoned parcel. The site is not on the National Priorities List, and there is no
reason to believe that the types of debris at issue would warrant the Agency to conduct a
removal action or compel any party to undertake any response activity.
• Does the SEP provide a municipality, state, or other entity that has received a federal
brownfields grant additional funds to perform a specific task identified within the
assistance agreement? Does the defendant/respondent seek to undertake work at a site
where a federal grant recipient has received an award to undertake the same work?
A. Yes. Cityville has received funding through a federal Brownfields Assessment Demonstration
Pilot.
B. No. There is no indication that Springfield or any entity has received a federal grant to clean up
the property.
• Does the SEP involve an Environmental Quality Assessment Project or an Environmental
Restoration Project?
A. Yes. The soil sampling project can be categorized as an Environmental Quality Assessment
Project.
B. Yes. Removal of the debris can be categorized as an Environmental Restoration Project.
-------
Brownfields and RCRA Fact Sheet
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
EPA330/F/99/001
November 1999
Background
In February 1995, EPA
announced its Brownfields
Action Agenda, launching the
first federal effort of its kind
designed to empower states,
tribes, communities, and other
parties to safely cleanup, and
return brownfields to
productive use. Building on
the original agenda, in 1997
EPA initiated the Brownfields
National Partnership Agenda,
involving nearly 20 other
federal agencies in
brownfields cleanup and
reuse. Since the 1995
announcement, EPA has
funded brownfield pilot
projects, reduced barriers to
cleanup and redevelopment by
clarifying environmental
liability issues, developed
partnerships with interested
stakeholders, and stressed the
importance of environmental
workforce training.
To date, EPA has focused
primarily on brownfield issues
associated with the
Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA or Superfund).
Representatives from cities
and industries, as well as
other stakeholders however,
have begun emphasizing the
importance of looking beyond
CERCLA and addressing
environmental issues at
brownfield sites in a more
comprehensive manner,
including issues related to the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). This
fact sheet provides a brief
overview of RCRA and its
potential requirements for
parties dealing with
Brownfields are aban-
doned, idled, or under-
used industrial and com-
mercial facilities where
expansion or redevelop-
ment is complicated by
real or perceived environ-
mental contamination.
-------
brownfields and their
associated assessment and
cleanup activities.
RCRA
The Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, an amend-
ment to the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, was enacted in
1976 to address a problem of
enormous magnitude—the
huge volumes of municipal
and industrial solid waste
generated nationwide. Gener-
ally, the RCRA program
focuses on prevention rather
than cleanup.
RCRA allows the state to
assume responsibility for
implementing a hazardous
waste regulatory program,
with oversight from the
federal government. In order
for a state to implement such
a program under RCRA, it
must receive authorization
from EPA. To obtain authori-
zation the state program must
be at least equivalent to and
consistent with the federal
rules, and must provide for
adequate enforcement. In
states that have received
authorization, known as
"authorized states," the state's
authorized hazardous waste
program applies in lieu of the
Table 1
RCRA's Three Interrelated Programs
Subtitle D
Solid Waste Program
Focuses on state and
local governments as
the primary planning,
regulation, and
implementing entities
for the management of
nonhazardous solid
waste, such as
household garbage and
nonhazardous
industrial solid waste.
Subtitle C
Hazardous Waste
Program
Establishes a system for
controlling hazardous
waste from the time it is
generated until its
ultimate disposal - in
effect, from cradle to
grave.
Subtitle I
Underground Storage
Tank Program
Regulates underground
tanks storing hazardous
substances and
petroleum products.
Major objectives are to
prevent and clean up
releases from these
tanks.
-------
federal program, although
EPA retains its enforcement
authorities.
RCRA establishes three
distinct yet interrelated
programs. The solid waste
program, under RCRA
Subtitle D, encourages states
to develop comprehensive
plans to manage nonhazard-
ous industrial solid waste and
municipal solid waste, sets
criteria for municipal solid
waste landfills and other solid
waste disposal facilities, and
prohibits the open dumping
of solid waste. The under-
ground storage tank (UST)
program, under RCRA
Subtitle I regulates under-
ground tanks storing hazard-
ous substances (but not
hazardous waste) and petro-
leum products. Subtitle C of
RCRA provides for the
comprehensive regulation of
hazardous waste. When fully
implemented, this program
provides "cradle-to-grave"
regulation of hazardous waste
by establishing a system for
controlling and tracking the
waste from its generation
through its ultimate disposal.
The hazardous waste require-
ments under RCRA Subtitle C
are the focus of this fact sheet
because brownfield activities
may, in certain instances,
involve the management of
hazardous waste.
RCRA's Cradle-to-Grave
Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment System
Under RCRA Subtitle C, EPA
has developed a comprehen-
sive program to ensure that
hazardous waste is managed
safely from the moment it is
generated; while it is trans-
ported, treated, or stored;
including final disposal (see
Figure 1). Therefore, Subtitle
C requirements apply to three
Figure 1
Hazardous
Waste
Generation
i "
Hazardous
Waste
Transportation
Treatment,
Storage,
and
Disposal
-------
classes of hazardous waste
handlers: generators; trans-
porters; and treatment, stor-
age or disposal facilities.
Generators
Subtitle C regulations broadly
define the term generator to
include any person who:
First creates or produces a
hazardous waste (e.g., from an
industrial process)
OR
First brings a hazardous waste
into the RCRA Subtitle C
system (e.g., imports a
hazardous waste into the US).
Hazardous waste (HW)
generators may include
various types of facilities and
businesses ranging from large
manufacturing operations,
universities, and hospitals to
small businesses and labora-
tories. Because these differ-
ent types of facilities generate
different volumes of wastes
resulting in varying degrees
of environmental risk, RCRA
regulates generators based on
the amount of waste they
generate in a calendar month.
There are three categories of
hazardous waste generators
(see Table 2).
Transporters
A hazardous waste transporter
is any person engaged in the
off-site transportation of
hazardous waste within the
United States, if such trans-
portation requires a manifest
(generated by a small quantity
generator or large quantity
generator). Off-site transpor-
tation includes shipments
from a hazardous waste
generator's facility to another
facility for treatment, storage,
or disposal. Regulated off-
site transportation includes
shipments of hazardous waste
by air, rail, highway, or water.
Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)
The requirements for treat-
ment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDFs) are more
extensive than the standards
for generators and transport-
ers. They include general
facility operating standards, as
well as standards for the
various types of units in
which hazardous waste is
managed. With some excep-
-------
tions, a TSDF is a facility
engaged in one or more of the
following activities:
Treatment - Any method,
technique, or process designed
to physically, chemically, or
biologically change the nature
of a hazardous waste
Storage - Holding hazardous
waste for a temporary period
(greater than 90 days), after
which that hazardous waste is
treated, disposed of, or stored
elsewhere
Disposal - The discharge,
deposit, injection, dumping,
spilling, leaking, or placing of
any solid or hazardous waste on
or in the land or water.
Identifying Hazardous
Waste
Determining whether a
material must be managed in
accordance with subtitle C
regulatory requirements
involves three steps. The first
step in the hazardous waste
identification process is
determining if a waste is a
solid waste. With some
exceptions, the regulations
define solid waste as any
material that is discarded,
regardless of its physical state
(i.e., solid, liquid, semi-solid,
or contained gas). For more
information on the exceptions
see 40 CFR Part 261.4. Once
a waste is classified as a solid
waste, the second step is to
determine whether the waste
is hazardous as defined by the
Subtitle C hazardous waste
regulation.
According to EPA definitions,
a material can be hazardous if
it falls into one of the follow-
ing categories:
It exhibits a "characteristic" of
hazardous waste (see 40 CFR
Part 261, SubpartD).
The Agency has specifically
designated (or "listed") the
material as hazardous (see 40
CFR Part 261, Subpart D).
Characteristic wastes are
hazardous because their
inherent properties exhibit
one or more of the following:
ignitability (some paints and
cleaning agents are examples),
corrosivity (such as waste
sulfuric acid from car batter-
ies), reactivity (e.g., discard-
ed explosives), or toxicity
(e.g., lead or arsenic). Regu-
lations in Part 261 define
-------
these properties.
being handled.
Listed wastes are wastes from
particular industrial processes,
wastes from certain industry
sectors, and certain unused
chemical formulations when
discarded or intended for
discard.
The third step for determin-
ing whether RCRA Subtitle
C requirements apply is
what one does with the mate-
rial: that is, how is the charac-
ter-istic or listed material
RCRA as it Relates to
Brownfields
Brownfields may come under
RCRA jurisdiction in two
ways. First, RCRA cleanup
requirements apply at
brownfields that are RCRA
treatment, storage or disposal
facilities (TSDF). All treat-
ment storage or disposal
facilities are required to obtain
a RCRA permit. Unless the
site becomes subject to
Table 2
Generator Categories
Large Quantity
Generators
Large quantity
generators (LQGs) -
defined as those
facilities that generate:
• 1,000 kg of hazardous
waste per calendar
month or greater
OR
• Greater than 1 kg of
acutely hazardous
waste per calendar
month
+A LQG may
accumulate hazardous
waste on site for 90
days or less without a
RCRA permit
Small Quantity
Generators
Small quantity
generators (SQGs) -
defined as those
facilities that:
• Generate between
100 kg and 1,000 kg
of hazardous waste
per month
OR
• Accumulate less than
6,000 kg of
hazardous waste at
any time
+A SQG may
accumulate hazardous
waste on site for 180
days or less
Conditionally
Exempt Small
Quantity Generators
Conditionally exempt
small quantity generators
(CESQGs) - defined as
those facilities that
generate:
• Less than 100 kg of
hazardous waste per
month
OR
• Less than 1 kg of
acutely hazardous
waste per month
+May not accumulate
more than 1,000 kg at
one time
-------
RCRA solely as a result of
conducting cleanup, these
RCRA permits are required to
address the cleanup of re-
leases from any unit where
solid or hazardous wastes
have been placed at any time.
Pursuant to 3008(h), EPA,
may through an administra-
tive or judicial order, also
compel cleanup at facilities
that have, or should have had
interim status, as well as some
facilities that had interim
status. Many states have
similar authority.
Second, cleanups at
brownfields that were not
previously RCRA facilities
can trigger RCRA require-
ments. In the course of a
cleanup, hazardous waste may
be generated, treated, stored,
or disposed of on site. If this
occurs, the property may
become subject to RCRA.
Applicable RCRA regulations
may include the requirement
to obtain a permit if certain
treatment, storage, or disposal
occurs on site. However, if
the waste is promptly re-
moved from the site (within
90 days), the remediator
could be regulated as a haz-
ardous waste generator, and
would not be required to
obtain a permit.
Cleanup Responsibilities
Under RCRA
The State or Federal agency
implementing the RCRA
program where a site is
located has the authority to
compel Corrective Action
(CA) at a treatment, storage,
or disposal facility (TSDF).
Generator-only sites are not
subject to RCRA corrective
action requirements. How-
ever, in certain circumstances,
under RCRA §7003, where
a condition at a site may
present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to
human health and/or the
environment, EPA has the
authority to compel present
and past owners and operators
as well as generators to clean
up a site.
HWIR-Media Rule and
Brownfields
The recently promulgated
Hazardous Remediation
Waste Management Require-
ments (HWIR-Media) Final
-------
Rule makes a number of
changes that should address
some concerns regarding the
application of RCRA to
brownfield sites. HWIR-
Media encourages cleanup
activities, particularly at sites
that may not otherwise be
subject to CA, such as
brownfields, making require-
ments under RCRA for
facilities handling only haz-
ardous remediation wastes
more flexible (i.e., those
wastes managed as a result of
cleaning-up a site). Among
other things, the rule provides
incentives for brownfield
cleanup by no longer mandat-
ing facility-wide corrective
action at cleanup only sites;
reducing permitting require-
ments to streamline the
administrative process; and by
creating a new kind of unit
called a "staging pile" that
allows more flexibility in
temporarily storing
remediation waste during
cleanup activities.
RCRA Brownfields Preven-
tion
In June of 1998, EPA an-
nounced its RCRA
Brownfields Prevention
Initiative which included
forming a national workgroup
to identify ways, in appropri-
ate situations, to facilitate the
cleanup and reuse of previ-
ously used property which
may have RCRA implica-
tions. EPA also plans to
select a few regionally spon-
sored pilots in 2000 to help
our goal of protective, expedi-
tious cleanups that allow
future reuse of the property.
While the RCRA Brownfields
Prevention Initiative will not
address large scale regulatory
or legislative reform, it will
build on the statutory and
regulatory flexibility that
currently exists. The goals
for EPAs RCRA Brownfields
Prevention Initiative are
1. To raise awareness by
announcing and publicizing
our intentions in undertaking
this initiative to lenders,
developers, community
representatives and other
stakeholders in brownfields
cleanup and reuse.
2. To work with our partners on
brownfields reuse to gather
information, identify and
address RCRA barriers, and
develop solutions.
-------
3. To develop tools such as fact
sheets and pilot good ideas
generated from dialogue with
interested stakeholders.
Questions and Answers
Q: WhatisaRCRA
Brownfield?
A: Brownfields are abandoned
or underutilized industrial and
commercial properties whose
potential for redevelopment is
complicated by real or per-
ceived environmental con-
tamination irrespective of
whether the property is sub-
ject to Superfund, RCRA or
another statute. RCRA
brownfields are simply
brownfields that may be or
have been subject to RCRA
requirements or may have
RCRA statutory or regulatory
implications.
Q: Does EPA have an estab-
lished program for RCRA
Brownfields?
A: In June of 1998, EPA
announced its RCRA
Brownfields Prevention
Initiative which included
forming a national workgroup
to identify ways, in appropri-
ate situations, to facilitate the
cleanup and reuse of previ-
ously used property which
may have been subject to
RCRA requirements.
Q: How do I find out if apiece
of property is regulated under
RCRA?
A: You can find out whether a
property is currently regulated
under RCRA by contacting
the state where the property is
located or by calling the
RCRA hotline at 800/424-
9346.
Q: What is the difference
between Superfund/CERCLA
and RCRA?
A: In operation, RCRA
primarily regulates active
facilities and is focused on
how wastes should be man-
aged to avoid potential threats
to human health and the
environment although it does
have a cleanup (i.e., corrective
action) component.
CERCLA, on the other hand,
-------
comes into play primarily
when a site has been aban-
doned or mismanagement has
occurred (i.e., when there has
been a release or a substantial
threat of a release in the
environment of a hazardous
substance or of a pollutant or
contaminant that presents an
imminent and substantial
threat to human health or the
environment).
Q: How is a site or facility
defined under RCRA ?
A: For purposes of corrective
action, RCRA defines a
facility as all contiguous
property under the control of
the owner or operator seeking
a permit under Subtitle C or
subject to an order under §
3008(h) of RCRA.
Q: What activities may subject
a per son to RCRA corrective
action (CA)?
A: Generally, treatment,
storage or disposal of waste
listed or identified as hazard-
ous under Subtitle C subjects
a facility to the corrective
action requirements (unless it
is a cleanup only site.)
Q: If I clean up my site under
CERCLA, do I still have
worry about RCRA
requirements?
A: A cleanup under CERCLA
should be adequate to meet
the RCRA cleanup, or correc-
tive action requirements.
However, a CERCLA cleanup
does not exempt you from
RCRA regulations. Site-
specific factors need to be
evaluated by the implement-
ing agency on a case-by-case
basis; consult your State, EPA
Regional office or the RCRA
hotline.
Q: As a RCRA facility, are
there any brownfield
incentives that I can take
advantage of?
A: At the federal level, EPA is
exploring administrative
options, within the existing
statutory framework, to
provide incentives. EPA plans
to select a few regionally
sponsored pilots in 2000 to
help our goal of protective,
-------
expeditious cleanups that
allow future reuse of the
property. Check with your
respective state and/or local
governments for incentives
offered independently of the
federal government.
Q: Will sampling trigger
RCRA?
A: No, sampling should not
generally trigger RCRA
regulations.
Q: Who is responsible for
cleanup at a RCRA site?
A: Unlike Superfund, under
RCRA generally the current
owner/operator of a facility is
responsible for cleanup.
However, under RCRA §7003
the implementing Agency has
the authority to compel past
owners and operators as well
as generators to clean up a site
in certain circumstances.
Q: How do I get more infor-
mation?
A: Visit EPAs web site at:
www.epa.gov/oswer or Call
our RCRA hotline: 800/424-
9346 or 703/412-9810
For more information on a
specific site in your area you
should contact your state
because RCRA is primarily
implemented by the states.
For further information contact:
Tessa Hendrickson - (202) 564-6052
Office of Site Remediation and
Enforcement
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
152
-------
The Imminent and Substantial
Endangerment Provision of Section
7003ofRCRA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), 42 U.S.C. Section 6973, provides EPA with a broad
and effective enforcement tool that can be used to abate immi-
nent and substantial endangerments to health or the environ-
ment. Designed for use by EPA staff, this fact sheet helps
clarity the meaning of "imminent and substantial endanger-
ment" and describes the usefulness of Section 7003.
Introduction
RCRA Section 7003 allows
EPA to address situations
where the handling, storage,
treatment, transportation, or
disposal of any solid or
hazardous waste may present
an imminent and substantial
endangerment to health or the
judicial action or issue an
administrative order to any
person who has conducted or
is contributing to such han-
dling, storage, treatment,
transportation, or disposal to
require the person to refrain
from those activities or to take
any necessary action.
Section 7003(a) is very
similar to the imminent and
substantial endangerment
provision contained in
CERCLA Section 106(a) of
the Compensation, Compre-
hensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), 42
U.S.C. Section 9606(a). In
addition, it allows EPA to
require some actions that can
also be required under the
corrective action provision set
forth in Section 3008(h) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Section
6928(h). However, RCRA
Section 7003 provides EPA
with a very valuable enforce-
ment tool by allowing EPA to
address several types of
situations that are beyond the
scope of CERCLA Section
106(a) and RCRA Section
-------
3008(h).
The Meaning of "Imminent
and Substantial Endangerment"
Despite the dramatic sound of
the term "imminent and
substantial endangerment," it
is not very difficult to meet
the endangerment standard set
forth in RCRA Section 7003.
The "imminent and substan-
tial endangerment" language
and standard contained in
CERCLA Section 106(a) and
RCRA are very similar to the
language and in Section
106(a) and RCRA Section
7002, 42 U.S.C. Section
6972, the RCRA citizen suit
provided provisions which
allows any person to com-
mence a civil action to seek
abatement of an imminent and
substantial endangerment to
heal or the environment. Thus
far, the courts have not distin-
guished between the endan-
germent standards of these
three provisions. The follow-
ing principles have emerged
from courts interpreting
RCRA and CERCLAs immi-
nent and substantial endanger-
ment provisions:
An "endangerment" is an
actual, threatened, or potential
harm to health or the
environment. [1] As underscored
by Congress use of the words
"may present" in the
endangerment standard of §
7003, neither certainty nor
proof of actual harm is
required. [2] Moreover, neither
a release nor threatened release
is required. [3] Endangerment
to the environment does not
require a risk to living
organisms. Thus, a risk to
groundwater in a populated area
is sufficient even if the
conditions may no present an
endangerment to humans or
other life forms. [4]
An endangerment can be
"imminent" if the present
conditions indicate that there
may be a future risk to health or
the environment, [5] even
though the harm may not be
realized for years. [6] It is not
necessary for the harm to be
immediate. [7]
An endangerment can be
"substantial" if there is
reasonable cause for concern
that health or the environment
may be at risk. [8] It is not
necessary that the risk be
quantified. [9]
Factors to consider when
determining if conditions may
present an imminent and
substantial endangerment
under RCRA Section 7003
-------
include (1) the levels of
contaminants in various
media, (2) the existence of a
connection between the solid
or hazardous waste and air,
soil, groundwater, or surface
water, (3) the pathway of
exposure from the solid or
hazardous waste to the popu-
lation at risk, (4) the sensitiv-
ity of the population, (5)
bioaccumulation in living
organisms, and (6) visual
signs of stress on vegeta-
tion. [ 10] It is important to
note, however, that in any
given case, one or two factors
may be so predominant as to
be determinative of the is-
sue.[ll]
The following are some
examples of situations where
courts have determined that
imminent and substantial
endangerments have existed
under RCRA:
At a shooting range where lead
from lead shot had accumulated
in the tissues of nearby
waterfowl and shellfish. [12]
At a facility where oily waste
containing hazardous
constituents had leaked from
tanks into surrounding
soils. [13] EPA had determined
that there was a potential for
off-site migration of the
contaminants through a
drainage ditch leading toward a
nearby river. [14] EPA also
documented the death of
several migratory birds and
introduced evidence from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
indicating that there was a
continuing threat to migratory
birds.[15]
At a municipal landfill that had
leaked at least 10% of its
leachate containing low levels
of lead into an adjacent
wetland. [16] Lead levels in test
wells surrounding the landfill
were generally below the
maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) for drinking water, [17]
and no actual harm was shown
to the wetland. [18] However,
an expert testified that cattails
in the wetland would not show
actual harm until they had been
exposed to contamination for
an extended period of time. [19]
At a shopping center where dry
cleaning solvents discharged
from dry cleaning facilities had
contaminated groundwater in a
populated area. [20]
Contaminant levels in the
migrating plume exceeded
MCLs. [21] Although some
area wells had been closed at
least in part because of the
contaminated plume, the court
found that the conditions may
have presented an imminent
and substantial endangerment
to the environment, but not
-------
necessarily to human
health. [22]
The Usefulness of Section
7003
Section 7003 provides broad
enforcement authority that can
be used against a variety of
parties to address endanger-
ments resulting from various
types of materials and to
require a wide variety of
abatement actions. Section
7003 is especially valuable
because it allows EPA to
address certain situations
which cannot be addressed
under either CERCLA Section
106(a) or RCRA Section
3008(h).
Two examples of the general
usefulness of Section 7003 are
the following:
Under § 7003, "any person"
includes any past or present
generator, past or present
transporter, or past or present
owner or operator of a
treatment, storage, or disposal
facility. EPA can therefore
initiate actions under Section
7003 against parties including
those falling into any of the
four categories of potentially
responsible parties (PRPs)
under CERCLA.
Section 7003 allows EPA to
require the respondent or
defendant to cease any
activities contributing to the
endangerment and/or take any
necessary action. Possible
abatement actions include
investigations and studies,
interim measures,
comprehensive corrective
action, controls on future
operations, and discontinuance
of operations.
Under CERCLA Section
106(a), EPA may initiate a
judicial action or issue an
administrative order to a PRP
when there may be an immi-
nent and substantial endanger-
ment because of an actual or
threatened release of a "haz-
ardous substance". Advan-
tages of RCRA Section 7003
over CERCLASection 106(a)
include the following:
Section 7003 can be used to
issue administrative orders to
any federal department or
agency in an expeditious
manner. Section 6001 (a) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Section 6961
(a), contains an express waiver
of sovereign immunity that
allows administrative orders
and civil and administrative
penalties and fines to be issued
and assessed against any
federal department or agency.
-------
Section 600 l(b) of RCRA, 42
U.S.C. Section 696l(b),
expressly grants the
Administrator the authority to
issue an administrative order to
another federal department or
agency pursuant to RCRA's
enforcement authorities,
including Section 7003.
Although RCRA Section
6001provides that an
administrative order issued to
federal department or agency
does not become final until the
department or agency has had
the opportunity to confer with
the Administrator, concurrence
from the Department of Justice
(DOJ) is not required for orders
issued under RCRA Section
7003. In contrast, Executive
Order 12580 on Superfund
Implementation (January
23,1987) requires EPA to obtain
DOJ concurrence before issuing
an order to federal department
or agency under CERCLA
Section 106(a). RCRA Section
7003 therefore allows for more
expeditious issuance of orders
to federal departments and
agencies.
Section 7003 can be used to
address endangerments caused
by waste which is "solid waste"
as defined in Section 1004(27)
of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Section
6903(27), but which is not
"hazardous waste" as defined in
Section 1004(5) of RCRA, 42
U.S.C.Section 6903(5), or in
the regulations promulgated
pursuant to Section 3001 of
RCRA 42 U.S.C.Section 6921.
The definition of "hazardous
substance" in Section 101(14)
of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.Section
9601(14), includes "hazardous
waste" having characteristics
identified under or listed
pursuant to Section 3001 of
RCRA. CERCLA's definition
of "hazardous substance" does
not include materials that
qualify as "solid waste" under
RCRA Section 1004(27),
although it does encompass
some materials, such as
radionuclides, which are not
"solid waste" and therefore
cannot be addressed under
RCRA Section 7003.
Nevertheless, RCRA Section
7003 can be used to address a
significant category of
materials, "solid waste" under
Section 1004(27), that cannot
be addressed under CERCLA
Section 106(a).
Section 7003 can be used to
address endangerments caused
by "hazardous waste" that
meets the broad definition of
that term under Section 1004(5)
of RCRA, but which does not
meet the more narrow
definitions of "hazardous
waste" promulgated in 40
C.F.R. Part 261 pursuant to
RCRA Section 3001. As noted
above, CERCLA's definition of
"hazardous substance" includes
"hazardous waste" having
characteristics identified under
-------
or listed pursuant to RCRA
Section 3001. The CERCLA
definition of "hazardous
substance" does not include all
materials that qualify as
"hazardous waste" as defined in
RCRA Section 1004(5).
Section 7003 can therefore be
used to address some hazardous
wastes that are beyond the
scope of CERCLA
Section 106(a).
Section 7003 can be used to
address endangerments caused
by petroleum. Petroleum is
excluded from the definition of
"hazardous substance" in
CERCLA Section 101(14).
Petroleum is not excluded from
the definitions of "solid waste"
under RCRA Section 1004(27)
or "hazardous waste" under
RCRA Section 1004(5). RCRA
Section 7003 can therefore be
used to address a significant
category of materials B
petroleum and petroleum
products B that cannot be
addressed under CERCLA
Section 106(a).
RCRA Section 3008(h) allows
EPA to require corrective
action to address the release
of hazardous waste or hazard-
ous constituents at any treat-
ment, storage, or disposal
facility authorized to operate
under interim status pursuant
to Section 3005(e) of RCRA,
42 U.S.C. Section 6925(e).
EPA interprets the term
"authorized to operate" to
include facilities currently
operating under interim status,
as well as those that lost
interim status or should have
obtained interim status but
failed to do so. RCRA§
3008(h) does not require a
finding of imminent and
substantial endangerment.
Nevertheless, advantages of
RCRA Section 7003 over
RCRA Section 3008(h)
include the following:
Section 7003 can be used to
address endangerments caused
by "solid waste" that meets the
definition of that term under
Section 1004(27) of RCRA, but
which does not meet the
definition of "hazardous waste"
under RCRA Section 1004(5 ).
At least one court has held that
RCRA Section 3008(h) applies
to the release of hazardous
constituents listed by EPA in
Appendix VIII of 40 C.F.R.
Part 261 and not merely to the
release of "hazardous waste" as
stated in RCRA Section
3008(h).[23] Nevertheless,
RCRA § 3008(h) does not
appear to apply to the release of
merely "solid waste" that is not
a hazardous waste or a
hazardous constituent. RCRA
Section 7003 can therefore be
used to address a significant
-------
category of materials, "solid
waste" under Section 1004(27),
that cannot be addressed under
RCRA Section 3008(h).
Section 7003 can be used to
address spills of solid or
hazardous waste by generators
at facilities that are not
authorized (and not required to
be authorized) for interim status
under RCRA Section 3008(h).
RCRA Section 3008(h) applies
only to releases from treatment,
storage, or disposal facilities
that have, had, or should have
had interim status. Section 7003
can therefore be used to address
releases and other
endangerments at a large
category of facilities that are
beyond the scope of Section
3008(h): facilities at which
solid or hazardous waste is
generated but which neither
have, had, nor were required to
have, interim status.
[1] See, e.g., Dague v. City of
Burlington, 935 F.2d 1349,1356
(2dCir. 1991).
[2] Id.
[3] United States v. Aceto
Agricultural Chemicals Corp.,
872 F.2d 1373, 1382 (8th Cir.
1989).
[4] See, e.g., Lincoln Properties.
Ltd. v. Higgins, 23. Envtl. L.
Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 20665,
20671-672 (E.D. Cal. 1993)
[6] See, e.g., United States v.
Conservation Chemical Co.,
619 F. Supp. at 194 (W.D. Mo.
1985).
[7] Dague, 935 F.2d at 1356.
[8] See, e.g., Conservation
Chemical Co., 619 F. Supp. at
194.
[9] Id.
[10] See, e.g., Dague v. City of
Burlington, 732 F. Supp. 458
(D.Vt. 1989).
[11] Conservation chemical Co.,
619 F. Supp. at 194.
[12] Connecticut Coastal
Fishermen's Association v.
Remington Arms Co., Inc., 989
F.2dl305, 1317 (2d Cir. 1993).
[13] United States v. Valentine, 856
F. Supp. 621, 625 (D. Wyo.
1994).
[14] Id. at 624.
[15] Id. at 624-625.
[16]Dague, 935 F.2d at 1356.
[5] See, e.g., Dague, 935 F2d at
1356.
-------
[17]Dague, 732 F. Supp. at 463.
[18] Id. at 469.
[19] Id. at 468.
[20] Lincoln Properties, 23 Envtl. L.
Rep. at 20671-672.
[21] Id. at 20671.
[22] Id. at 20672.
[23] United States v. Clow Water
Systems, 701 F. Supp. 1345,
1356 (S.D. Ohio 1988).
For further information contact:
The Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement, in conjunction with the
Office of Regulatory Enforcement, is
currently developing a guidance
document to supersede EPA's 1984
guidance on the use and issuance of
administrative orders under RCRA
Section 7003. The 1984 guidance will
remain in effect until the new guidance
is issued.
If you have questions about this fact
sheet or the project to develop new §
7003 guidance, please contact EPA's
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
at (202) 564-5100.
-------
RCRA CLEANUP REFORMS
Faster, Focused, More Flexible Cleanups
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W)
EPA530-F-99-018
Office of Solid Waste
July 1999
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is implement-
ing a set of administrative reforms, known as the RCRA
Cleanup Reforms, to the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Corrective Action program. The reforms are
designed to achieve faster, more efficient cleanups at RCRA
sites that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste and have
potential environmental contamination. Although these reforms
will emphasize flexibility and trying new approaches to clean
up these facilities, EPA and the states will continue to ensure
protection of human health and the environment.
Why Is EPA Doing the
RCRA Cleanup
Reforms?
When the RCRA law and
regulations governing proper
hazardous waste management
went into effect around
1980, thousands of facili-
ties became newly subject
to these federal regula-
tions. This RCRA regula-
tory structure has helped
ensure that hazardous
waste generated from
ongoing industrial opera-
tions is properly managed
and does not contribute to a
future generation of toxic
waste sites. However, many
of these facilities had
existing soil and groundwa-
ter contamination resulting
from historical waste
National Cleanup Goals
(Number of Facilities with Cleanup
Measures Verified per Year)
Year
1999
172
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Current Human
Exposures
Controlled
172
172
172
172
257
257
255
Groundwater
Contamination
Controlled
84
172
172
172
172
172
172
Total 1629* 1200*
By 2005 (95%) (70%)
•"Includes facilities verified prior to 1999
-------
management practices. The
RCRA Corrective Action
program addresses cleanup of
existing contamination at
these operating industrial
facilities.
Congress, the general public,
EPA, and state agencies all
believe the pace and progress
of RCRA cleanups must be
increased. In reviewing the
program, EPA and other
stakeholders identified several
factors that were impeding
timely and cost-effective
RCRA cleanups. In some
instances, RCRA cleanups
have suffered from an empha-
sis on process steps and a lack
of clarity in cleanup objec-
tives. An additional complica-
tion is that the application of
certain RCRA requirements,
such as the land disposal
restrictions (LDR), minimum
technological requirements,
and permitting, can create
impediments to cleanup.
What Are the RCRA
Cleanup Reforms?
The RCRA Cleanup Reforms
are EPA's comprehensive
effort to address the key
impediments to cleanups,
maximize program flexibility,
and spur progress toward a set
of ambitious national cleanup
goals. The national cleanup
goals focus on 1,712 RCRA
facilities identified by EPA
and the states warranting
attention over the next several
years because of the potential
for unacceptable exposure to
pollutants and/or for ground-
water contamination. The
goals, set by EPA under the
Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA), are that
by 2005, the states and EPA
will verify and document that
95 percent of these 1,712
RCRA facilities will have
"current human exposures
under control," and 70 percent
of these facilities will have
"migration of contaminated
groundwater under control."
To ensure that these ambitious
goals are achieved, the RCRA
Cleanup Reforms outline
aggressive national cleanup
goals for each of the next
several years. Implementation
of the proposed reforms will
help us achieve the national
RCRA cleanup goals. Specifi-
cally, the RCRA Cleanup
Reforms will:
-------
Provide new results-oriented
cleanup guidance with clear
objectives.
Foster maximum use of
program flexibility and
practical approaches through
training, outreach, and new
uses of enforcement tools.
Enhance community
involvement including greater
public access to information on
cleanup progress.
These reforms are described
in more detail at the end of
this fact sheet. The reform
efforts are intended to build
on actions taken by EPA and
the states in recent years to
accelerate cleanups, such as:
The May 1, 1996, Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPR, 61 FR 19432) which
contains the Agency's latest
guidance for the corrective
action program and identifies a
number of flexible cleanup
approaches.
Recent promulgation of the the
Hazardous Remediation Waste
Management Requirements
("HWIR-Media," 63 FR 65874,
November 30, 1998) which,
among other things, create
streamlined RCRA permits for
cleanup wastes, release
"cleanup only" facilities from
requirement to conduct facility-
wide corrective action, and
allow for temporary "staging
piles" that have flexible design
and operating requirements.
Recent promulgation of the
Post-Closure Regulation (63 FR
56710, October 22, 1998)
which provides flexibility to
EPA and authorized states by
removing the requirement that
interim status facilities obtain a
permit for the post-closure care
of a waste management unit
when other enforcement
documents are used, and
harmonizing the sometimes
duplicative closure and
corrective action requirements.
The Land Disposal Restrictions
Standards for Contaminated
Soils (63 FR 28617, May 26,
1998) which better tailor
RCRA's LDRs to contaminated
soils managed during cleanups.
How Will the Success of
the Reforms Be
Measured?
While the ultimate goal of
RCRA Corrective Action is to
achieve completed cleanups,
we will measure the near-term
success of the program and
reforms against the GPRA
goals and annual cleanup
targets for verifying that
current human exposures are
under control and migration
of contaminated groundwater
-------
is under control (see table on
preceding page). Measuring
and recording our progress
toward these goals will be a
top priority for EPA and the
states over the next several
years.
How Will EPA Involve
Stakeholders In the
Reforms?
We will provide periodic
updates on the RCRA
Cleanup Reforms and solicit
input from stakeholders
through several means includ-
ing focus meetings, Federal
Register notices, the new
RCRA Corrective Action
newsletter, Internet postings,
and press releases. EPA seeks
continuous feedback from all
stakeholders on the need for
additional reforms beyond
those already underway.
While the Agency values and
appreciates the feedback and
interest of all stakeholders,
limited resources will not
allow us to respond individu-
ally to those who provide
input on the RCRA Cleanup
Reforms. All input will be
seriously considered by EPA,
however. Based on stake-
holder input and our ongoing
assessment of the program,
we will continue to refine the
RCRA Cleanup Reforms, add
reforms as needed, and com-
municate program changes
including those resulting from
stakeholder input.
For further information contact:
the RCRA Hotline at 800-424-9346. You
may also e-mail your questions via our
Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/
index.htm.
If you would like to provide written
feedback on the Reforms, please mail
them to the RCRA Information Center
(5305W), USEPA, 401 M St., SW,
Washington, DC 20460 or, e-mail to
rcra-docket@epa.gov. Please include the
following number on all
correspondence, written or e-mailed, to
the RCRA Information Center:
F-1999-CURA-FFFFF.
The RCRA Corrective
Action program is run
jointly by EPA and the
states, with 33 states and
territories authorized to
implement the program.
Corrective action is con-
ducted under RCRA per-
mits, orders and other
approaches.
-------
RCRA Cleanup Reforms
EPA is Implementing the following reforms to help streamline
RCRA cleanups and meet the national cleanup goals
I. Provide new results-
oriented cleanup guidance
with clear objectives
EPA will issue a Federal
Register notice concerning
the operating guidance for
the corrective action
program. EPA also will issue
several guidance documents
to emphasize use of
flexibility in the corrective
action process, consistent
measures for determining
when a site has met
corrective action goals, and
to provide a more consistent
basis for groundwater use
decisions.
a. Notice Concerning 1990
Subparr S Proposal
In an upcoming Federal
Register notice, EPA plans to
announce its intention not to
take final action on most of
the provisions of the July 27,
1990, proposed Subpart S
rule. Provisions of Subpart S
which have been finalized
(e.g., Corrective Action
Management Units) will
remain in effect. This notice
is intended to eliminate
uncertainty for states and
owner/operators created by
the potential promulgation
of detailed federal regul-
ations, thereby clearing the
way for implementation of
more flexible corrective
action approaches. In the
notice, EPA plans to clarify
that the Agency does not
intend to finalize a process-
oriented corrective action
approach, and to confirm that
the 1996 Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
remains the primary co-
rrective action program
guidance.
b. Corrective Action Guidance
1. Environmental Indicators
Guidance and Implement-
ation
The two corrective action
Environmental Indicators-
Current Human Exposures
under Control sn&Migration
of Contaminated Ground-
water under Control-are
measures of program
progress and are being used
to meet the goals set under
the Government Perform-
ance and Results Act. This
guidance, issued in February
1999, describes how to
determine if these measures
have been met.
These Environmental Indic-
ators are designed to aid site
decision makers by clearly
showing where risk reduct-
ion is necessary, thereby
helping regulators and
-------
facility owner/operators
reach agreement earlier on
stabilization measures or
cleanup remedies that must
be implemented. Focusing
on the Environmental
Indicators should also help
reduce delays in the review
of cleanup work plans and
allow owner/operators and
regulators to concentrate on
those problems that potent-
ially pose significant risks.
2.Results-Based Approaches
for RCRA Corrective Action
This guidance will stress that
results-based approaches
which emphasize outcomes
and eliminate unnecessary
process steps, should be a
significant part of state/
regional corrective action
programs in order to meet the
GPRA goals and to move
facilities toward the longer-
term goal of final facility
cleanup. Results-based
approaches include setting
cleanup goals, providing
procedural flexibility in how
goals are met, inviting
innovative technical
approaches, focusing data
collection, and letting owner/
operators undertake cleanup
action with reduced Agency
oversight, where appropriate.
Under such approaches,
owner/operators focus on
environmental results and the
most technologically effic-
ient means of achieving them
while still being held fully
accountable.
3. Corrective Action Comple-
tion Guidance
This guidance will discuss
how to document completion
of corrective action at
facilities. It will address:
termination of permits and
interim status where
corrective action is complete;
how to determine that
corrective action is complete
at part of a facility; and the
importance of public
involvement in corrective
action. This guidance will
provide for a more pre-
dictable completion process
and provide facility owner/
operators with reasonable
assurance that regulatory
activities can be completed at
their facility.
4. The Role of Groundwater
Use in RCRA Corrective
Action
This guidance is intended to
provide more certainty about
cleanup objectives and
expectations with respect to
groundwater remediation. It
will include recommend-
ations on how to account for
current and reasonably
expected uses of ground-
water when imple-menting
interim and final RCRA
corrective action remedies.
-------
II. Foster Maximum Use of
Program Flexibility and
Practical Approaches
throughTraining, Out-
reach, And New Uses of
Enforcement Tools
Through outreach and
training, EPA will encourage
maximum appropriate use of
the existing flexibility in the
corrective action program
and prompt implementation
of recent rules offering
regulatory flexibility.
a. Prompt Implementation of
the HWIR-Media and Post-
Closure Rules
EPA will strongly encourage
states to expeditiously in-
corporate the Hazardous
Remediation Waste Manage-
ment Requirements (HWIR-
Media) and Post-Closure
regulations into their
programs. As more states
adopt and implement the
flexibility in the HWIR
Media rule, Post Closure
rule, and the alternative soil
treatment standards pro-
mulgated under LDR Phase
IV, impediments to cleanup
will be reduced. This is
because these rules limit the
applicability in certain
cleanup situations of some
RCRA requirements such as
land disposal restrictions,
minimum technological
requirements, and permitt-
ing, or provide alternative
requirements more tailored
to cleanup situations.
b. Maximize Practical
Approaches and Use All
Appropriate Authorities to
Expedite Cleanup
The national EPA program
office will reach out to the
EPA regions, states, and
external stakeholders to
emphasize the importance of
environmental results in the
corrective action program.
EPA will place a priority on
authorizing additional states
to implement corrective
action or enhancing work
sharing arrangements with
states that are not authorized
for the program. With the
RCRA Cleanup Reforms we
hope to develop a new
atmosphere of partnership
and cooperation among
regulatory authorities,
industry, and stakeholders
We will encourage regulators
to use a broad spectrum of
approaches to expedite
corrective action and achieve
GPRA goals. These
approaches include new uses
of enforcement tools to
create incentives for cleanup
at facilities with cooperative
owners as well as to compel
cleanups at facilities where
collaborative approaches
have not yielded results.
-------
c. Provide Comprehensive
Training on Successful
Cleanup Approaches
EPA has launched a
comprehensive training
effort on Results-Based
Corrective Action, which
features a three-day
workshop offered to EPA
Regions and states in 1999
and 2000. An Internet
version of this training is also
being developed for release.
The training will emphasize
to corrective action
regulators the flexibility in
existing policies and
regulations. EPA and State
regulators will learn from
their peers about innovative,
successful approaches that
are speeding cleanups now at
corrective action sites. The
training emphasizes using a
Conceptual Site Model and
Environmental Indicators to
help focus corrective action
activity at sites. This
comprehensive training
effort will help EPA and
State regulators make
maximum use of the
flexibility inherent in the
corrective action program
and to adopt more
streamlined approaches for
accelerating cleanups.
III. Enhance Community
Involvement Including,
Greater Public Access to
Information on Cleanup
Progress
a. Emphasize Public Involve-
ment in RCRA Cleanups
Some of the clear benefits of
meaningful public involve-
ment include: letting the
public know from the onset
that their opinions are valued
and can influence decision
making; learning from the
public about past environ-
mental problems associated
with the facility; gaining an
understanding of current as
well as future land use plans;
and avoiding delays which
can arise late in the remedy
selection process when the
public has not been
adequately engaged.
EPA will continue to
emphasize the importance of
meaningful public involve-
ment throughout RCRA
cleanups. EPA's commitment
to meaningful public
involvement was described
in the 1996 Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and
is part of the central theme
of effective communication
that is interwoven throughout
the corrective action training
effort. In addition, public
involvement is the focus of
the RCRA Public Particip-
ation Training which is now
under development and will
be offered to regions and
states. EPA will also convene
workshops with stakeholders
later this year. Through these
workshops we hope to better
-------
understand the public's
concerns as well as gather
suggestions for further
improvements to the correct-
ive action program.
b. Provide Detailed Inform-
ation on Cleanup Progress
EPA will post information on
cleanup progress for
individual facilities on the
Internet. With this inform-
ation, we hope to generate
greater public interest and
awareness in corrective
action at individual facilities,
thereby enhancing the ability
of the community to become
more involved in decisions
about the cleanup. This
information will allow stake-
holders to monitor progress
at facilities in their area as
well as overall progress in the
corrective action program.
Information is available at:
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
osw/cleanup.htm.
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
170
-------
RCRA CLEANUP REFORMS
Reforms II: Fostering Creative Solutions
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W)
EPA530-F-01-001
Office of Solid Waste
January 2001
www.epa.gov/osw
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is implement-
ing a second set of administrative reforms to accelerate the
cleanup of hazardous waste facilities regulated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA's 1999
Reforms promoted faster, focused, more flexible cleanups. The
2001 Reforms reinforce and build upon the 1999 Reforms and
will pilot innovative approaches, accelerate changes in culture,
connect communities to cleanup, and capitalize on redevelop-
ment potential, while maintaining protection of human health
and the environment.
Why Is EPA Reforming the
RCRA Corrective Action
Program?
The goals for the RCRA
Corrective Action program
remain very challenging. To
more effectively meet these
goals and speed up the pace of
cleanups, EPA introduced
RCRA Cleanup Reforms in
1999 and is implementing
additional Reforms in 2001.
The 1999 and 2001 Reforms
build upon actions taken by
EPA and the states in recent
years to accelerate cleanups.
EPA believes that the 1999
Reforms remain central to
successful implementation of
the program. The 1999 Re-
forms were designed to:
Focus the program more
effectively on achievement of
environmental results, rather
than fulfillment of unnecessary
steps in a bureaucratic process;
• Foster maximum use of
program flexibility and
practical approaches to achieve
program goals;
Enhance public access to
cleanup information and
improve opportunity for public
involvement in the cleanup
process.
-------
The 1999 Reforms set the
near-term focus of the pro-
gram on attainment of the two
Environmental Indicators and
established an environment
for program implementors to
be innovative and results-
oriented. The 1999 Reforms
have successfully led the
program toward faster, fo-
cused, more flexible cleanups.
An example of progress since
1997 is the increase in the
number of RCRA cleanup
facilities meeting both Envi-
ronmental Indicatorse, (from
47 to 504).
In 2000, EPA held a series of
meetings with program
implementors and stakehold-
ers, including representatives
from tribes, federal and state
agencies, regulated industry,
and environmental and com-
munity groups, to discuss
program impediments, suc-
cessful approaches and ideas
for 2001 Cleanup Reforms.
Central ideas that emerged
include the importance of: (1)
reinforcing and building upon
the 1999 Reforms; (2) em-
powering program
implementors to try new
approaches at the site level;
and (3) using frequent, infor-
mal communication through-
out the cleanup process.
What Are the Goals
of the RCRA
Corrective Action
Program?
EPA has established two
near-term goals, termed
"Environmental Indica-
tors," for the RCRA Cor-
rective Action program.
These goals, developed
under the Government
Performance and Results
Act (GPRA), are that by
2005, the states and EPA
will verify and document
that 95 percent of the
1,714 RCRA cleanup fa-
cilities under GPRA focus
will have "current human
exposures under control,"
and 70 percent of these fa-
cilities will have "migra-
tion of contaminated
groundwater under con-
trol." The long-term goal
of the program is to
achieve final cleanup at all
RCRA corrective action
facilities.
-------
What Are the RCRA
Cleanup Reforms of
2001?
The RCRA Cleanup Reforms
of 2001 highlight those
activities that EPA believes
would best accelerate program
progress and foster creative
solutions. The 2001 Reforms
reflect the ideas EPA heard
from program implementors
and stakeholders and intro-
duce new initiatives to rein-
force and build upon the 1999
Reforms. Specifically, the
2001 Reforms will:
Pilot innovative approaches;
Accelerate changes in culture;
Connect communities to
cleanups;
Capitalize on redevelopment
potential.
The 2001 Reforms include
just some of the innovative
approaches that have been
identified by program
implementors and stakehold-
ers. EPA intends to continue
work in other areas critical to
meeting program goals. In
particular, we seek to: con-
tinue a dialogue with inter-
ested parties on groundwater
cleanup and other issues
relating to final cleanup;
provide guidance tailored to
cleanup at facilities with
limited resources to pay for
cleanup; and, continue to
work with federally-owned
facilities to help them meet
their Environmental Indicator
goals. Similarly, we encour-
age program implementors
and stakeholders to use
approaches that improve the
program yet are not specifi-
cally included in the RCRA
Cleanup Reforms.
I. Pilot innovative
approaches.
The RCRA Cleanup Reforms
Pilot Program will support
state and EPA Regional
Offices in their efforts to use
innovative, results-orientated
and protective approaches to
speed achievement of Envi-
ronmental Indicator goals and
final cleanup. Stakeholders
are encouraged to contact
state and EPA Regional
Offices with their pilot ideas.
EPA has set a target of 25
pilot projects to be launched
in 2001. EPA expects at least
one pilot project in each EPA
Region, administered by the
state or EPA. EPA will show-
case pilot projects to share
-------
successes and lessons learned
and to promote use of similar
approaches at other facilities.
EPA recommends that stake-
holders consider pilot projects
in one or more areas. Ex-
amples include pilots that:
Achieve program goals most
effectively at companies with
multiple facilities;
Improve stakeholder
involvement and
communication to resolve
issues where cleanup progress
is slow;
Use site characterization
technologies or strategies that
efficiently assess
Environmental Indicators;
Enhance the use of protective
and accountable state non-
RCRA Cleanup programs to
achieve program goals;
Establish EPA Regional or state
"corrective action expediters"
to focus on cleanups that are
stalled or delayed;
Expedite achievement of
program goals at federally-
owned facilities;
Use Superfund or emergency
authorities at RCRA sites for
bankrupt or unwilling facilities.
What is the RCRA
Corrective Action
Program?
In 1980, when the RCRA law
and regulations went into effect,
thousands of facilities became
subject to hazardous waste
management regulations. These
regulations helped ensure that
hazardous waste generated
from ongoing industrial opera-
tions is properly managed and
does not contribute to a future
generation of toxic waste sites.
However, many of these facili-
ties had soil and groundwater
contamination resulting from
their waste management prac-
tices prior to 1980. The RCRA
Corrective Action program ad-
dresses cleanup of past and
present contamination at these
operating industrial facilities.
Who Runs the RCRA Correc-
tive Action Program?
The RCRA Corrective Action
program is run by both EPA and
the states, with 38 states and ter-
ritories authorized to implement
the program. Corrective action
is conducted under RCRA per-
mits, orders and other ap-
proaches.
II. Accelerate changes in
culture.
EPA will help program
implementors and stakehold-
ers accelerate changes in the
culture in which they imple-
-------
ment the program by: focus-
ing on results over process;
encouraging frequent, infor-
mal communication among
stakeholders; encouraging
partnerships in training;
promoting methods of infor-
mation exchange; and, using
new approaches to meet
Environmental Indicator and
long-term cleanup goals. EPA
will:
• Promote nationwide dialogue
among program implementors
and stakeholders on RCRA
cleanups. EPA Regional Offices
will work with states in an
effort to hold at least one
meeting in 2001 in each EPA
Region, open to all stakeholders
who wish to interact, provide
input, or learn more about the
RCRA Corrective Action
program. Discussion topics
could cover local, regional or
national topics relevant to
corrective action.
• Conduct targeted training in
partnership with program
implementors and stakeholders.
EPA will work with interested
parties to deliver targeted
training, depending upon the
needs of those requesting the
training and available
resources. Training topics could
cover, for example: innovative
technical and administrative
approaches to cleanup; success
stories and lessons learned from
Focus on Results
The RCRA Cleanup Re-
forms foster creative, prac-
tical, results-based ap-
proaches to corrective ac-
tion. In the field, this
means:
• Providing tailored oversight.
Eliminate administrative or
technical steps where not
needed to assure effective
performance.
• Using holistic approaches.
Evaluate facilities for overall
risk and apply appropriate
facility-wide corrective
action measures.
• Exercising procedural flex-
ibility. Emphasize results
over mechanistic process
steps and eliminate unprod-
uctive activities.
• Setting performance stand-
ards, Establish clear pro-
tective standards the owner/
operator must fulfill to
complete corrective action.
• Targeting data collection.
Examine actual conditions at
each facility to design data
requirements as needed to
support corrective action
decisions.
implementation of the 1999
Cleanup Reforms; Corrective
Action program basics; and use
-------
of performance-based
approaches to corrective action.
• Use web-based communication
to share successes and lessons
learned and promote innovative
approaches. EPA will support
the establishment of a web-
based interactive tool to
promote sharing of successes
and lessons learned and to
provide for frequent exchange
of ideas among all stakeholders
on any corrective action topic,
including those that are
technical, policy-oriented or
site-specific.
• Overcome barriers to achieving
Environmental Indicators. EPA
will clarify the relationship
between Environmental
Indicators and final cleanups
and how Environmental
Indicators can be met within the
context of existing orders and
permits. EPA will answer
"Frequently Asked Questions"
about Environmental
Indicators, and issue technical
guidance on ways to assess the
impacts of contaminated
groundwater on surface water
and indoor air quality. In
addition, EPA will demonstrate
new uses of enforcement tools
to achieve Environmental
Indicators.
III. Connect communities
to cleanups.
EPA will provide the public
with more effective access to
cleanup information. EPA
seeks to increase public
interest in and awareness of
cleanup activities, and to
further enhance the public's
ability to become more in-
volved in decisions about
cleanups in communities. EPA
will:
• Clarify principles and
expectations for public
involvement in corrective action
cleanups. EPA will set out
general principles and
expectations for providing the
public with the opportunity to
become involved at corrective
action sites. EPA also will share
examples of successful public
involvement approaches that
have been used at RCRA
cleanup sites and lessons
learned.
• Increase support of Technical
Outreach Services for
Communities (TOSC). The
TOSC program provides
communities with technical and
educational assistance from
universities on issues associated
with cleanup of hazardous sites.
EPA will provide resources to
the TOSC program for
community involvement at
RCRA cleanup sites and
advertise the availability of this
program.
• Place Environmental Indicator
evaluation forms and cleanup
summaries on EPA web sites.
-------
EPA will place Environmental
Indicator evaluation forms and
summaries of cleanup activities
of 1,714 RCRA facilities on the
web sites of EPA Regional
Offices. The evaluation forms
and summaries will provide
readily available information on
the status of cleanup at these
sites.
• Publicize and promote the use
of readily accessible cleanup
information sources. EPA will
produce and distribute a
pamphlet for the general public
that explains how to access
RCRA Corrective Action
program information and site-
specific cleanup information.
IV. Capitalize on
redevelopment potential.
EPA encourages program
implementors and stakehold-
ers to capitalize on the rede-
velopment potential of RCRA
cleanup sites. Many of these
sites are located in areas that
are attractive for redevelop-
ment and are poised for
community revitalization.
These factors can motivate
interested parties to pursue an
expedited cleanup, sometimes
with additional resources.
EPA will:
Initiate Additional R CRA
Brownfields Pilots. EPA will
launch 4-6 additional RCRA
Brownfields pilot projects in
2001. These pilots will be
designed to showcase the
flexibility of RCRA and the use
of redevelopment potential to
expedite or enhance cleanups.
Pilot applicants could be
program implementors or
stakeholders. Pilot participants
also benefit from RCRA
brownfields expertise. Limited
funding may become available
for EPA to conduct public
meetings and related activities.
Initiate the Targeted Site Effort
(TSE) Program to spur cleanup
at RCRA sites with significant
redevelopment/reuse potential.
EPA will ask each Regional
Office to identify two sites for
the TSE in 2001. The TSE
program will apply to sites that
have significant redevelopment/
reuse potential, and require a
limited amount of extra EPA
support to help spur cleanup.
The TSE program will provide
participants with focused
attention and access to RCRA
brownfields expertise. Limited
funding may be available for
EPA to conduct public meetings
and related activities.
Provide training and outreach
to program implementors on
using redevelopment potential
to meet program goals. EPA
will provide training and
outreach to program
implementors and stakeholders
to promote the environmental
and community benefits that
-------
can be gained by integrating
brownfields redevelopment
opportiunities and RCRA
facility cleanups.
• Promote cleanup and
redevelopment with
R CRA "Comfort/Status"
Letters. " Comfort/status"
letters provide information
regarding EPA's intent to
exercise its RCRA corrective
action response and
enforcement authorities at a
cleanup site. EPA will issue
examples of letters that have
been used to spur cleanup and
redevelopment at RCRA
facilities.
How Will EPA Measure
the Results of the
Reforms?
Measuring and recording the
results of the RCRA Cleanup
Reforms is a priority for EPA
and the states to ensure
continued improvement of the
Corrective Action program.
EPA will measure progress in
putting the reforms into
practice. EPA recognizes
program implementors are
using new approaches that
may or may not be high-
lighted in the Cleanup Re-
forms, and will measure
progress under these ap-
proaches as well. While the
ultimate goal of the Corrective
Action program is to achieve
final cleanups, EPA will
continue to measure the near-
term success of the program
against its Environmental
Indicator goals for controlling
human exposure and migra-
tion of contaminated ground-
water.
How Will EPA Involve
Stakeholders in
Implementing the
Reforms?
EPA will provide periodic
updates on the RCRA
Cleanup Reforms and solicit
input from stakeholders
through several means, in-
cluding focus meetings,
Federal Register notices, the
RCRA Corrective Action
Newsletter, Internet postings,
and press releases.
EPA seeks continuous feed-
back from all stakeholders on
the need for additional re-
forms beyond those already
underway. EPA values and
appreciates the feedback and
interest of all stakeholders.
However, limited resources
may not allow us to respond
individually. Based on stake-
holder input and our ongoing
assessment of the program,
-------
we will continue to refine and
add to the RCRA Cleanup
Reforms, as needed, and will
communicate program
changes.
If you would like to provide
written comments on the
RCRA Cleanup Reforms,
please mail your comments
to:
RCRA Information Center
(5305W),U.S. Environmental
Protection Agenry, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC, 20460-0002, or send an
email to the RCRA docket at
rcra-docket@,epa.gov. Please
include the following number
on all correspondence, written
or e-mailed, to the RCRA
Information Center: F-2001-
CRII-FFFFF.
For further information on corrective
action cleanups, please visit state and
EPA Regional web sites, which can be
linked via the EPA corrective action web
site at http://www.epa.gov/
correctiveaction. The EPA corrective
action web site has the latest and more
detailed information on the RCRA
Cleanup Reforms.
If you have questions regarding the
RCRA Cleanup Reforms, please call the
RCRA Hotline at 800-424-9346 or TDD
800-553-7672, or visit their web site at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/
index.htm.
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
180
-------
Environmental Fact Sheet
TREATMENT STANDARDS SET FOR TOXICITY
CHARACTERISTIC (TC) METAL WASTES, MINERAL
PROCESSING WASTES, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W)
EPA530-F-98-010
Office of Solid Waste
April 1998
www.epa.gov/osw
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing
regulatory controls that encourage the safe recycling and
disposal of hazardous metal waste and newly identified waste
from mineral processing.
Background
The widespread practice of disposing of hazardous waste in
units located directly on the land has been regulated by EPA's
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program for many years. A
major part of the LDR program is to adequately protect public
health and safety by establishing treatment standards for
hazardous wastes before they can be disposed of in land dis-
posal units. These treatment standards either specify that the
waste be treated by a specified technology, or that they be
treated by any technology as long as the concentration of
hazardous constituents is below a certain level. Universal
Treatment Standards specify the concentration levels for haz-
ardous constituents. In addition to setting new treatment stan-
dards, another continuing task of the EPA is to better define
which industrial materials are wastes, thus subject to regula-
tion, and which should be excluded from regulation.
Action
LDR treatment standards are established for metal-bearing
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
182
-------
APPENDIX C
183
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
184
-------
Report on U.S. EPA's Prospective
Purchaser Agreements and
Comfort/Status Letters:
How Effective Are They?
September 29, 2000
Background
To quell the growing concern that some parties may incur
Superfund liability although they did not cause the hazardous
waste contamination, EPA developed two mechanisms - PPAs
and comfort/status letters.
Over the years, EPA had heard that these tools were very
effective in allaying those concerns although the Agencies had
not collected data.
In order to substantiate the anecdotal claims that PPAs and
comfort/status letters enabled parties to reuse formerly con-
taminated property, OSRE undertook a survey analysis of
regional staff and private parties. OSRE used the surveys to
collect general information on the use of these tools, obtain
specific data on property cleanup and reuse, and determine the
effectiveness of these tools in meeting the needs of private
parties and regional staff to cleanup and reuse contaminated
property.
OSRE evaluated the survey responses according to the follow-
ing criteria:
How instrumental PPAs and comfort/status letters have been in
accelerating site cleanup and revitalization of blighted properties;
How effective PPAs and comfort/status letters have been in meeting the
needs of the requesters;The timeliness of the PPA and comfort/status
letter process, and whether they have satisfied the affected parties;
185
-------
What affected parties consider
the most important elements of
PPAs or comfort/status letters;
The types of property cleanups
and reuse situations in which
PPAs or comfort/status letters
have been most useful;
The problems parties have
encountered while going
through the PPA or comfort/
status letter process and
recommendations for addressing
those problems; and,
Alternatives to PPAs and
comfort/status letters.
Survey Results
Comfort/Status Letters
Regional and private party
respondents were given the
opportunity to provide com-
ments on their experiences in
negotiating a comfort/status
letter and provide suggestions
for improving the process.
The majority of private parties
were satisfied with EPA's
comfort/status letter process.
The following is a summation
of the most consistent and
significant suggestions offered
by regional and private party
respondents.
Benefits:
Comfort/status letters, enable
the return of properties to more
environmentally beneficial uses.
Comfort/status letters help local
communities revive their
neighborhoods.
Comfort/status letters enhance the
economic viability of reuse projects.
Comfort/status letters are a relatively
fast and inexpensive tool to facilitate
brownfield redevelopment.
Improvements:
Accelerate the comfort/status letter
process.
Ensure that EPA and private parties
explore other options that could
alleviate concerns over Federal
Superfund liability.
Strengthen assurance and reduce
caveats in comfort/status letters.
Archive sites that are eligible for
comfort/status letters whenever
possible.
The comfort/status letter survey
findings indicate that regional
offices are effectively implement-
ing the policy and that the letters
have facilitated property reuse.
Respondents also reported that
comfort/status letters, for the most
part, are relatively easy to obtain.
EPA has already made progress
towards facilitating property reuse
and addressing some of the chal-
lenges presented by survey respon-
dents.
-------
Survey Results
PPAs
The majority of private parties
were satisfied with EPA's PPA
process. Although respon-
dents provided relatively few
comments, there were consis-
tent themes that underscore
the benefits and areas that
EPA had already identified for
improvement. Other factors
also came to light. For example,
the more fully characterized a
site, the faster EPA and
purchasers finalize the PPA.
Benefits:
• PPAs help local communities
revive their neighborhoods.
PPAs support diverse uses at
properties of varying sizes.
• PPAs enhance the economic
viability of reuse projects.
PPAs allow property reuse and
site cleanup to coincide.
PPAs preserve the Superfund
Trust Fund, thus allowing EPA
to clean up other hazardous
waste sites.
Improvements:
Streamline the PPA process.
Ensure that EPA and private
parties explore other options
that could alleviate concerns
over Federal Superfund
liability.
Provide guidelines on
appropriate consideration.
Improve communication with
states, local governments, and
local communities.
The PPA survey findings
indicate that EPA is effec-
tively implementing its PPA
guidance to encourage and
facilitate the cleanup and
reuse of Superfund sites and
that the number of successful
agreements has increased
significantly in recent years.
Respondents also reported
that EPA, for the most part,
has been responsive to pur-
chasers in meeting their needs
in a timely manner. At the
same time, the respondents
commented that EPA still
could improve the process of
obtaining PPAs. As outlined
on pages 50-51 of the Final
Report, EPA has already made
progress towards its goals of
improving the PPA process
and addressing the difficulties
private parties encountered
while obtaining a PPA.
For further information contact:
Elisabeth Freed - (202) 564-5117
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
188
-------
APPENDIX D
189
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
190
-------
Sample No Previous Superfund Interest Letter
Addressee
Re: [Insert name or description of property/site]
Dear [Insert name of party]:
I am writing in response to your letter dated —/—/-- concerning the property referenced
above. My response is based upon the facts presently known to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and is provided solely for informational purposes.
The federal Superfund Program, established to cleanup hazardous waste sites, is adminis-
tered by EPA in cooperation with individual states and local and tribal governments. Sites are
discovered by citizens, businesses, and local, state or federal agencies. When a potential
hazardous waste site is reported, EPA records the available information in its database, the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS). [NOTE: if a region practices pre-CERCLIS screening procedures, please include
language indicating that the procedures exists, whether or not the property is in the process of
being "pre-screened", and what this means to the inquirer. Adjustments may be needed to the
sample language contained in this letter] The fact that a site is listed in CERCLIS, however,
does not mean that an EPA response action will occur at the site or that ownership or operation
of the site is restricted or may be associated with liability. The fact that a property is not listed
in CERCLIS does mean that EPA is not currently planning to take any action under the federal
Superfund program to evaluate the site for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) or to
conduct removal or remediation activities.
The above-referenced property was not identified in a search of the active and archived
records in the CERCLIS database. Please note that its absence from CERCLIS does not
represent a finding that there are no environmental conditions at this property that require
action or that are being addressed under another federal or state program. The absence of the
property from CERCLIS means that, at this time, EPA is not aware of any information
indicating that there has been a release or threat of release of hazardous substances at or from
the facility that needs to be assessed by the federal Superfund program and that no such
assessment has been performed by EPA in the past. I encourage you to contact [insert name of
state or local agency] to determine if they have information regarding the property and its
environmental condition. [Regions also are encouraged to check with other program offices to
determine whether EPA is addressing this site under another statute such as RCRA].
If you would like more comprehensive information on current or historical CERCLIS data
or to request an additional search, please contact the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), a publishing clearinghouse for government information. The address is: U.S.
Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA22161 (telephone: (703)
487-4650; fax: (703) 321-8547.) CERCLIS information is also available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htmltfProducts. Should you have any further questions
about Superfund, please feel free to contact me at [insert phone number/address.]
Sincerely,
Regional Contact
cc: State contact
-------
Sample No Current Superfund Interest Letter
Addressee
Re: [Insert name or description of property]
Dear [Insert name of party]:
I am writing in response to your letter dated —I—I— concerning the property referenced
above. My response is based upon the facts presently known to the United States Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) and is provided solely for informational purposes. For the reasons
stated below, EPA does not presently contemplate additional Superfund action for this property.
In response to growing concern over health and environmental risks posed by hazardous
waste sites, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), establishing the Superfund program to clean up
these sites. The Superfund program is implemented by EPA in cooperation with individual
states and local and tribal governments. Sites are discovered by citizens, businesses, and local,
state, or federal agencies. After a potential hazardous waste site is reported to EPA, the
available information is recorded in the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS), EPA's data management system for Superfund. Sites are
added to CERCLIS when EPA believes that there may be contamination that warrants action
under Superfund.
I. [FOR ARCHIVED SITES]
If, after an initial investigation, EPA determines that the contamination does not warrant
Superfund action, or if an appropriate Superfund response action has been completed, EPA will
archive that site from CERCLIS. This means that EPA believes no further federal response is
appropriate. Archived sites may be returned to the CERCLIS site inventory if new information
necessitating further Superfund consideration is discovered.
EPA has archived the above-referenced property from the CERCLIS site inventory because
[choose one of the following (a, b, or c) to complete the sentence]
[a.], following site evaluation activities, EPA determined that either no contamination was
found or conditions at the property did not warrant further federal Superfund involvement.
[b.] a federal removal action was completed and no further Superfund action is planned for
this property.
[c.] environmental conditions at the property are subject to requirements of [RCRA, UST,
OPA, etc.], however, no further interest under the federal Superfund program is warranted. For
further information concerning these requirements, please contact [name and telephone
number].
[Add to previous sentence] EPA, therefore, anticipates no need to take additional Superfund
enforcement, investigatory, cost recovery, or cleanup action at this archived site unless new
information warranting further Superfund consideration or conditions not previously known to
EPA regarding the site are discovered. EPA will maintain a dialogue with the states and will
continue to refer archived sites to the states for their review and consideration. You may want
to contact [insert state contact, address and telephone number] for further information.
II. [FOR PARTIAL OR FULL DELETIONS FROM NPL OR FOR A SITE BOUND-
ARY SITUATION]
-------
CERCLIS does not describe sites in precise geographical terms primarily because the
boundaries of the contamination and available information on those boundaries can be
expected to change over time. Once enough information regarding the nature and extent
of the release of the hazardous substances is gathered, EPA can more accurately delineate
the boundaries of a site. [Choose either (a), (b) or (c)].
(a) [If the property was included in a partial deletion from the NPL]
The above-referenced property [is/appears to be] situated within the [name of NPL site]
which is included on EPA's list of high priority hazardous waste CERCLIS sites known as
the National Priorities List (NPL). EPA, however, has determined that no further
investigatory or cleanup action is appropriate at the property under the federal Superfund
program. With the [insert State Agency] concurrence, EPA has decided to delete the
portion of the NPL site which contains the above-referenced property in accordance with
the Agency's A Procedures for Partial Deletions at NPL Sites" (OERR Directive Number
9320.2-11, August 30, 1996).
(b) [If the property is contained within the NPL site or is defined as the NPL site and
the site has been deleted from the NPL]
The identified property [is/appears to be] [select one: situated within the defined
geographical borders of the [name of NPL site] or defined as the [name of the NPL site]]
which is included on EPA's list of high priority hazardous waste CERCLIS sites known as
the National Priorities List (NPL). EPA, however, has determined that no further
investigatory or cleanup action is appropriate at the property. In consultation with the
[insert State Agency], EPA has decided to delete this property from the NPL in accordance
with "Deletion from the NPL" 40CFR 300.425(e).
(c) [If the property is not part of the CERCLIS site but is nearby]
The above-referenced property is located [near or adjacent to] the [name of CERCLIS
Site]. At this time, [statement as to the status of the site at present time: e.g., preliminary
assessment, site investigation, removal, remedial investigation or feasibility study is
underway or is completed]. Based upon available information, the property is not
presently considered by EPA to be a part of the [name of the CERCLIS site].
[Add to end of paragraph (a), (b), or (c)]
EPA, therefore, anticipates no need to take [any/additional] [Superfund enforcement-
include if PRP search and cost recovery are complete] investigatory or cleanup action at
this property unless new information warranting further Superfund consideration or
conditions not previously known to EPA regarding the property are discovered. You may
want to contact [insert state agency information] for further information. [If appropriate,
enclose a copy of the fact sheet on the CERCLIS site].
III. [IF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD HAS BEEN COMPILED]
EPA has compiled an administrative record for the [name of CERCLIS or NPL Site]
which provides information on the nature and extent of the contamination found at the
site. This record is available at EPA Region — and at [location nearby to the site].
If you have any additional questions, or wish to discuss this information, please feel
free to contact [insert EPA contact and address].
Sincerely yours,
Regional Contact
cc: State contact
-------
Sample Federal Superfund Interest Letter
Addressee
Re: [insert name or description of property/site] [COMMENT1]
Dear [Insert name of party]:
I am writing in response to your letter dated —I—I— concerning the property referenced
above. My response is based upon the facts presently known to the United States Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) and is provided solely for informational purposes.
In response to growing concern over health and environmental risks posed by hazardous
waste sites, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) and established the Superfund program to clean up these sites. The
Superfund program is implemented by EPA in cooperation with individual states and local and
tribal governments. Sites are discovered by citizens, businesses, and local, state and federal
agencies. After a potential hazardous waste site is reported to EPA, the site-specific
information is recorded in the Superfund database, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). Sites are added to CERCLIS when
EPA believes that there may be contamination that warrants action under Superfund.
EPA initially screens a potential hazardous waste site to determine what type of action, if
any, is necessary. The Superfund program may then perform a preliminary assessment and site
investigation to determine whether contamination at a property is likely to require a federal
cleanup response, an evaluation to determine if a short term response action to eliminate or
reduce contamination is needed, and add the site to EPA's list of high priority hazardous waste
sites known as the National Priorities List (NPL).
EPA is examining [and/or addressing] the property referenced above in connection with the
[insert name of CERCLIS/NPL site] under the authority of CERCLA. [Insert appropriate
paragraphs from Sections I and/or II below. Use III for requests regarding the applicability of
a specific policy. Section IV represents the closing paragraph for all the Federal Superfund
Interest letters].
I. STATUS OF THE IDENTIFIED PROPERTY:
a. The above-referenced property is presently part of [or is] the [insert name of site.]
[Add paragraph from Section II for further information concerning the site.]
b. The above-referenced property may be part of the [insert name of site.] [Add
paragraph from Section II for further information concerning the site.]
II. STATUS OF EPAACTIVITIES
a. The site has been placed in the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Information System ("CERCLIS") site inventory, but no studies or
investigations have been performed to date. Accordingly, EPA has not developed sufficient
information relating to the nature and extent of contamination to presently determine whether
further federal action is appropriate under Superfund. Additionally, EPA has not yet
determined which properties may be considered part of the site.
b. A Superfund site evaluation is planned at the [insert name of site] to investigate
possible contamination, and where it may be located. Accordingly, EPA has not yet deter-
mined which properties may be considered part of the [insert name of site.] [Add description
of site evaluation activity or attach relevant documents, if available.]
-------
c. A Superfund site evaluation activity is underway at the [insert name of site] to
investigate possible contamination, and where it may be located. Accordingly, EPA has not yet
determined which properties may be considered part of the [insert name of site.] [Add
description of site evaluation activity or attach relevant documents, if available.]
d. The [insert name of site] has been proposed to [or placed on] the Superfund
National Priorities List ("NPL"). [Refer to and/or attach Federal Register notice.] The
description of [insert name of site] contains EPA's preliminary evaluation of which properties
are affected, although the actual borders of the Superfund site could change based on further
information regarding the extent of contamination and appropriate remedy.
e. A Superfund Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) is planned at [insert
name of site.] [Add description of RI/FS and ensuing activities or attach relevant documents, if
available].
f. A Superfund Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) is underway at
[insert name of site.] [Add description of RI/FS and ensuing activities or attach relevant
documents, if available].
g. A Superfund Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) has been completed
at [insert name of site.] [Add description of RI/FS and ensuing activities or attach relevant
documents, if available].
h. EPA is planning a Superfund Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) at [insert
name of site.] [Insert pertinent information such as a description of the ROD and RD/RA, such
as date of issuance of the ROD, schedule for cleanup; Fund lead or PRP implementation,
cleanup progress to date; a schedule for future cleanup, especially a final completion date,
cleanup levels to be achieved, and anticipated future land use of the Site, or attach relevant
informational documents].
i. EPA has commenced a Superfund Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) at
[insert name of site.] [Insert pertinent information such as a description of the ROD and RD/
RA, such as date of issuance of the ROD, schedule for cleanup; Fund lead or PRP implementa-
tion, cleanup progress to date; a schedule for future cleanup, especially a final completion
date, cleanup levels to be achieved, and anticipated future land use of the Site, or attach
relevant informational documents].
j. Superfund Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) has been completed at
insert name of site.] [If possible provide information on cleanup achievements, whether it was
PRP or Fund-lead, etc., or attach relevant informational documents, if available] A Five-year
Review will [will not] be necessary at [insert name of site.] [Also, describe status with respect
to deletion from the NPL.]
k. A removal action is planned at [insert name of site.] [provide information on
cleanup achievements, whether it was PRP or Fund-lead, and contact number for On-Scene
Coordinator, cost recovery staff, or ORC attorney, or attach relevant informational documents,
if available.]
1. A removal action is ongoing at [insert name of site.] [provide information on
cleanup achievements, whether it was PRP or Fund-lead, and contact number for On-Scene
Coordinator, cost recovery staff, or ORC attorney, or attach relevant informational documents,
if available.]
m. A removal action has been completed at [insert name of site.] [provide information
on cleanup achievements, whether it was PRP or Fund-lead, and contact number for On-Scene
Coordinator, cost recovery staff, or ORC attorney, or attach relevant informational documents,
if available.]
-------
III. FOR PARTIES OR SITES COVERED BY AN EPA POLICY/STATUTE/REGULA-
TION
Dear [Insert name of party]:
I am writing in response to your letter dated —I—I— concerning the property referenced
above. My response is based upon the facts presently known to the United States Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA).
As you may know, the above-referenced property is located within or near the [insert name
of CERCLIS site.] EPA is currently taking [insert description of any action that EPA is taking
or plans to take and any contamination problem.]
[Choose either paragraph [a] or [b]]:
[a. For situations when a party provides information showing that 1) a project found to be
in the public interest is hindered or the value of a property is affected by the potential for
Superfund liability, and 2) there is no other mechanism available to adequately address the
party's concerns.]
The [insert policy citation/statutory/regulatory provision], provides that EPA, in an exercise
of its enforcement discretion, will not take an enforcement action against parties who meet the
conditions and criteria described in the [insert policy/statute/regulation]. Based upon the
information currently available to EPA, EPA believes that the [policy/statutory/regulatory
provision] applies to [you/your] situation. I am enclosing a copy of the [policy/statutory or
regulatory provision and fact sheet, if appropriate] for your review.
[b. For situations when a party does not provide information showing that 1) a project
found to be in the public interest is hindered or the value of a property is affected by the
potential for Superfund liability, and 2) there is no other mechanism available to adequately
address the party's concerns, attach the appropriate policy/statutory or regulatory language and
insert the following language]:
The [insert policy citation/statutory/regulatory provision], provides that EPA, in an exercise
of its enforcement discretion, will not take an enforcement action against parties who meet the
conditions and criteria described in the [insert policy/statute/regulation]. [EPA currently does
not have enough information available to determine whether the [insert policy/statutory/
regulatory citation] applies to your situation OR EPA, based upon the current information
available, believes that you/your circumstances do not meet the criteria/provisions of the
[policy/statute/regulation]. I, however, have enclosed a copy of the [policy/statutory or
regulatory language] for your own review and determination of its applicability to you [or your
situation].
IV. CLOSING PARAGRAPH
EPA hopes that the above information is useful to you. [Optional—In addition, we have
included a copy of our latest fact sheet for the (insert name of site.)] Further, we direct your
attention to the [insert location of site local records repository] at which EPA has placed a
copy of the Administrative Record for this site. [Include for section III letters only: This letter
is provided solely for informational purposes and does not provide a release from CERCLA
liability] If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this letter, please feel free to contact
[insert EPA contact and address].
Sincerely,
Regional Contact
Enclosure
-------
Sample State Action Letter
Addressee
Re: [Insert name or description of site/property]
Dear [Insert name of party]:
I am writing in response to your letter dated —I—I— concerning the property referenced
above. My response is based upon the facts presently known to the United States Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) and is provided solely for informational purposes.
The problem of investigating, responding to, and cleaning property contaminated by
hazardous substances is a complex one. In an effort to maximize resources and ensure timely
responses, EPA and the states work together in responding to properties posing threats of
environmental contamination. Although the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as "Superfund") is a federal law that
establishes a federal program, the law also envisions and provides for state involvement at sites
handled under the Superfund program. CERCLA explicitly describes scenarios under which a
state may have a significant and prominent role in site activities.
I. [INSERT THIS SECTION FOR SITES DESIGNATED STATE-LEAD IN CERCLIS]
The site about which you have inquired, [site name], is a site that falls under the federal
Superfund program, but has been designated a state-lead. A state-lead designation means that
although the site remains in EPA's inventory of sites and may be on EPA's list of highest
priority sites, the National Priorities List (NPL), implementing responsibilities to investigate
and cleanup that site rest with the state of [insert name of state]. Specifically, [insert name of
state] is responsible for the day-to-day activities at the site and will ultimately recommend the
cleanup for the site. EPA's role is to review some of [insert name of statej's milestone
documents, if appropriate, provide technical assistance if needed, and, in most cases, approve
the final cleanup method recommended by the state. The state and EPA work together closely,
pursuant to the terms of a Memorandum of Agreement (MO A) to ensure that site responses are
conducted in a timely manner and that interested parties are included in site activities.
Because EPA's day-to-day role at the [insert name of site] is somewhat limited, you should
check with the [your state or state's environmental program] for more detailed information on
site activities, [insert name of state] is best able to provide you with detailed information
about the site and public documents regarding site activity. [Regions should include the state
RPM name and number, or at least the state's applicable department name and number].
II. [INSERT THIS SECTION FOR SITES DESIGNATED ADEFERRED TO STATE
AUTHORITIES PURSUANT TO EPA'S SUPERFUND DEFERRAL POLICY]
The site about which you have inquired, [site name], is a site that falls under the federal
Superfund program, but for which EPA does not have the day-to-day responsibility. Specifi-
cally, the [site name] site is not proposed for or listed on the NPL. EPA has agreed not to
propose or list the [site name] site on the NPL while the state of [name of state] addresses the
environmental conditions at the property under its own state authorities. While the [site name]
cleanup is being conducted, EPA intends to act in accordance with "Guidance on Deferral of
NPL Listing Determinations While States Oversee Response Actions" (OSWER Dir. 9375.6-
11, May 3, 1995). A copy of this guidance is enclosed for your review and should help you to
better understand EPA's role and intentions at sites for which activities are deferred to state
authorities.
-------
III. [INSERT FOR A SITE DESIGNATED "DEFERRED" THAT NOW HAS BEEN
ARCHIVED]
The conditions at the above-referenced property were addressed by [name of state] pursuant
to EPA's "Guidance on Deferral of NPL Listing Determinations While States Oversee
Response Actions" (OSWER Dir. 9375.6-11, May 3, 1995). Upon completion of cleanup
activities at the [site name], the property has been removed from EPA's inventory of hazardous
waste sites, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS). Consistent with EPA's state deferral guidance, EPA does not
intend to further consider the property for listing on the NPL [or to take additional Superfund
enforcement, investigatory, cost recovery, or clean up action at the property] unless EPA
receives new information about site conditions that warrants reconsideration.
A copy of EPA's "A Guidance on Deferral of NPL Listing Determinations While States
Oversee Response Actions" is enclosed for your review, so that you may better understand the
nature of EPA's role at the [site name]. For detailed information about site activities and
conditions, you may wish to contact [insert name of state or state's environmental department],
the agency responsible for overseeing activities on the property.
IV. [INSERT FOR A SITE ADDRESSED UNDER A STATE VCP THAT HAS AN MOA
IN PLACE]
The site about which you have inquired, [site name], is a site contained in EPA's inventory
of hazardous waste sites, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System. The [site name] site is not, however, proposed for or listed on
EPA's list of highest priority sites, the National Priorities List (NPL). EPA and the state of
[insert name of state] have agreed, pursuant to a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between
the two agencies, to place the site under the authorities of [insert name of statej's Voluntary
Cleanup Program. For specific details regarding the activities at [site name] or the MOA, you
may wish to contact the [state name or department responsible for implementing the MOA].
If you have any additional questions, or wish to discuss this information, please feel free to
contact [insert EPA contact and address].
Sincerely yours,
Regional Contact
cc: State contact
[COMMENTl](Insert name of Site and identification of property identified in the initial
request letter)
[COMMENT2]Select the following paragraph(s) under (A) which apply. Add property-
specific information as appropriate.
[COMMENTS] [If appropriate, attach and refer to depiction of Site to illustrate]
-------
APPENDIX E
199
-------
This page is intentionally blank.
200
-------
Headquarters
401M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement
Mail Code: 2273A
Fax: 202-564-0093
Tessa Hendrickson
Policy and Guidance Branch
202-564-6052
hendrickson.tessa@epa.gov
Phil Page
Policy and Guidance Branch
202-564-4211
page.phillip@epa.gov
Elisabeth Freed
Policy and Guidance Branch
202-564-5117
freed.elisabeth@epa.gov
Outreach and Special Projects
Staff
(Brownfields Lead Office)
Mail Code: 5101
Fax: 202-260-6606
Linda Garczynski, Director
202-566-2731
garczynski.linda@epa.gov
Ann McDonough,
Associate Director
202-566-2729
mcdonough.ann@epa.gov
Office of Emergency and Reme-
dial Response
Mail Code: 5204G
Fax: 703-603-9104
Melissa Friedland (SRI)
703-603-8864
friedland.melissa@epa.gov
John Harris (SRI)
703-603-9075
harris.john@epa.gov
Technology Innovation Office
MailCode:5102G
Fax: 703-603-9135
Daniel Powell
703-603-7196
powell. daniel@epa. gov
Office of Environmental Justice
Mail Code: 2201A
Fax: 202-564-0740
Charles Lee
202-564-2698
lee.charles@epa.gov
Office of General Counsel
Mail Code: 2366A
Fax:202-564-5531
Karen Kraus (Superfund)
202-260-4139
kraus.karen@epa.gov
Dawn Messier (RCRA)
202-564-5517
me ssier. daw n@epa. gov
Office of Solid Waste (RCRA)
Mail Code: 5303W
Fax: 703-308-8658
Mike Fitzpatrick
703-308-8411
fitspatrick.michael@epa.gov
-------
Sara Rasmussen
703-308-8399
rasmussen.sara@epa.gov
Regional Superfund
Brownfields Contacts
Region 1 -CT, ME, MA, NH, Rl,
VT
One Congress Street
Boston, MA, 02114-2023
Fax: 617-918-1291
Lynne Jennings
617-918-1210
jennings.lynn@epa.gov
Rona Gregory*
617-918-1096
gregory.rona@epa.gov
Audrey Zucker*
zucker.audrey@epa.gov
Region 2-NJ, NY, PR, VI
290 Broadway, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10278
Fax: 212-637-4360
Larry D'Andrea
212-637-4314
dandrea.larry@epa.gov
Michael Mintzer*
212-637-3168
mintzer. michael@epa. gov
Region 3 - DE, DC, MD, PA, VA,
WV
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Fax: 215-814-5518
Tom Stolle
215-814-3129
stolle.tom@epa.gov
Heather Gray Torres*
215-814-2696
torres.heathergray@epa.gov
Region 4 - AL, FL, GA, KY, MS,
NC,SC,TN
Atlanta Federal Center
6 IForsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Fax: 404-562-8628
Mickey Hartnett
404-562-8661
hartnett. mickey @epa. gov
Janet Magnuson*
404-562-9581
magnuson.janet@epa.gov
Region 5 - IL, IN, Ml, MN, OH,
Wl
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Fax:312-353-7190
Deborah Orr
312-886-7576
orr.deborah@epa.gov
Peter Felitti*
312-886-5114
felitti.peter@epa.gov
Region 6 - AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
First Interstate Bank Tower at
Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Fax: 214-665-6660
-------
Stan Hitt
214-665-6736
hitt. Stanley @epa. gov
Joseph Compton*
214-665-8506
compton.joseph@epa.gov
Region 7 - IA, KS, MO, NE
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Fax: 913-551-7063
Susan Klein
913-551-7786
klein.susan@epa.gov
Bob Richards*
913-551-7502
richards.robert@epa.gov
Region 8 - CO, MT, ND, SD, UT,
WY
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Fax: 303-312-6071
Kathie Atencio
303-312-6803
atencio.kathie@epa.gov
Suzanne Bohan*
303-312-6925
bohan. suzanne@epa.gov
Region 9 - AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS,
GU
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Fax: 415-744-1796
Jim Hanson
415-744-2237
hanson.jim@epa.gov
Bill Keener*
415-744-1356
keener.bill@epa. gov
Region 10-AK, ID, OR, WA
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Fax: 206-553-0124
Tim Brincefield
206-553-2100
brincefield.tim@epa. gov
Cara Steiner-Riley*
206-553-2569
steiner-riley. cara@epa. gov
^Indicates Regional BrownfieM Attorney
Regional RCRA
Brownfields Contacts
Matt Hoagland
USEPA Region 1 (MC HBT)
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1361
hoagland.matt@epa.gov
Michael Poetzch
USEPA Region 2
290 Broadway/ 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4147
poetzch.michael@epa.gov
Deborah Goldblum
USEPA Region 3 (MC 3RC30)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3432
goldblum.deborah@epa.gov
-------
Susan Capel
USEPA Region 4
Atlanta Federal Cente
6 IForsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-9655
capel. susan@epa.gov
Ann Wentz
USEPA Region 5 (MC DW-8J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
312-886-8097
wentz.ann@epa.gov
Cathy Gilmore
USEPA Region 6 (MC 6 EN-HX)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
214-665-6755
gilmore.cathy@epa.gov
Stephanie Doolan
USEPA Region 7 (MC
RCAPARTD)
90IN. 5thStreet
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-7719
doolan.stephanie@epa.gov
Bill Rothenmeyer
USEPA Region 8 (MC 8 P-HW)
999 18th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2466
303-312-6045
rothenmeyer. william@epa. gov
Karen Ueno
USEPA Region 9 (MC WST-2)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-2023
ueno.karen@epa.gov
Mike Slater
USEPA Region 10
Oregon Operations Office
811 S.W. 6th Avenue, third floor
Portland, OR 97204
slater.mike@epa.gov
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4204)
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 832-F-98-006
October 1998
Ending Brownfield Remediation with
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Brownfields
Many areas across the country that were once used for
industrial and commercial purposes have been abandoned or
arc under-used. Some are environmentally contaminated or
perceived to be contaminated. Because developers,
municipalities, and other stakeholders fear that involvement
with these sites may make them liable for cleaning up
contamination they did not create, they are more attracted to
developing sites in pristine areas, called "greenfields," The
result can be blighted areas rife with abandoned or under-used
industrial or commercial facilities that create safety and health
risks for residents, drive up unemployment, and foster a sense
of hopelessness. These areas are called "brownfields."
Brownfields/Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Collaboration
Brownfields sites that suffer from water quality
impairment can use the CWSRF as a powerful
financial instrument for planned corrective action.
assistance,)
3. Correction ofGroundwater Contamination
4. Remediation of Petroleum Contamination
(Includes assessment and cleanup of petroleum
contamination and underground storage tanks, which are
not covered under Brownfields/Superfund funding.)
Getting a Project Funded
The list of brownfield projects that may be eligible for CWSRF
funding includes, but is not limited to
excavation and disposal of underground storage tanks
constructed wetlands (filtering mechanism)
capping of we! is
excavation, removal, and disposal of contaminated soil
or sediments
tunnel demolition
well abandonment
Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III assessments
t-^>
Act). Contact your 5ta$gf
There are currently 51 Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) programs (one in each state and Puerto Rico), which
operate like banks. They are capitalized through Federal and
state contributions. These assets, in turn, are used to make
hw or no-interest loans for important water quality projects.
Funds are then repaid to the CWSRFs over terms as long as
twenty years. Repaid funds are then recycled to fund other
water quality projects. These CWSRF resources can help
augment the limited financial resources currently available
under the Brownfield Initiative's pilot program to clean up
these sites. Brownfield mitigation to correct or^reventwa^^,,..., CWSRF is funding ne
quality problems may bef£liglbIe^C^:S&^^^
includes
Brownfield showcase communities and pDots with such
projects are also eligible for CWSRF funding.
The first step in securing CWSRF funding is to get your
project/remediation plan on your state's Nonpoint Somce
Management Plan (NSMP) (Section 319 of the Clean Water
program for details
(requirements, NSMP dIopragftt, scheduling, restrictions,
etc.).
billion in assets and has
iince 1988. Currently the
m worth of water quality
The CWSRF has in ex
issued almost $23 billicSf
/. Abatement of Polluted
?. Control of'Storm-water
(Stormwater acUvMes'
recipients are
groups, and
•gram is
'jeijgtbt!i& pay vary
J stale! Cai&ct your
!-;:;-Hw<"f, * J
-------
slate's CWSRF program for details.
CWSRF History
In creating the CWSRF, Congress ensured that it would be
able to fund a wide range of water quality projects, including
nonpoint source, wetlands, estuaries, and watershed projects,
as well as municipal wastewater treatment systems. The SRF
provisions in the Clean Water Act give no more preference to
one category or type of project than any other. However,
States ultimately determine funding priorities and project
approvals.
Sources of Loan Repayment
Each state must approve a source of loan repayment as part of
the application process. Though finding a source of repayment
may prove challenging, it does not have to be unnecessarily
burdensome. Many users of,the CWSRF have demonstrated a
high level of creativity in developing sources of repayment.
The source of repayment need not come from the project itself.
In fact, in the case of a Brownfields redevelopment, the
repayment source should not be based on the speculative
success of a real estate development project.
Some potential repayment sources include
+ fees paid by developers on other lands
4 recreational fees (fishing licenses, entrance fees)
* dedicated portions of local, county, or state taxes or fees
+ property owner ability to pay (determined during loan
application)
* donations or dues made to nonprofit groups
+ storm water management fees
+ wastewater user charges
Learning by Example
The Grant Realty Company of Ohio received a CWSRF loan
for the cleanup of a 20-acre industrial site in Cleveland to
prepare the area for commercial reuse. The project involved
live remediation of contaminated groundwa!er and soils using
vapor extraction and dual phase vacuum extraction
technologies. Their dedicated source of repayment is the
income stream from a tank cleaning operation, with a personal
loan guarantee and a second position mortgage as collateral.
Grant Realty participated in the Voluntary Action Program
(YAP) administered by the Ohio EPA, which allows voluntary
cleanup of contaminated property in exchange for a release
from further cleanup activities,
The Barberton Laundry and Cleaning, a small company
located in Barberton, Ohio, used CWSRF financing to
soil and groundwater sampling to determine the extent of any
easting contaminabon and tie scope of any remedial activities
needed to prepare the site for reuse. Their dedicated source of
loan repayment is the revenue stream from accounts receivable.
Private lenders were unwilling to finance this work. This
assessment was a critical first step in redeveloping the site.
The State of Wisconsin is laying the groundwork for future
Brownfields/CWSRF collaboration. They have passed
legislation thai will allocate 520 million of their CWSRF
(Land Recycling Loan Program) to municipalities to help clean
up contaminated properties. Planned interest rates will be
55% of the market rate Award priority will be based on die
project's potential to reduce environmental pollution, threats
to public health, and development of pristine land. Currently
they are developing their priority ranking system.
Challenges Ahead
EPA has been encouraging the states to open their C WSRFs to
the widest variety of water quality projects while still
addressing their highest priority projects. Those interested in
cleaning up a brownfield site should seek out their CWSRF
program, gain an understanding of how their state program
works, and participate in the annual process that determines
which projects arc funded.
For the list of Clean Water State Revolving Fund
state contacts or more information, contact:
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (MaiJcode 4202}
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-7359 Fax: (202) 260-1827
internet: www.epa.gov/OWM
For more information on Brownfields, contact:
Outreach and Special Projects Staff
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (MaiIcode 5101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-4039 Fax; (202) 260-6606
internet: www.epa.gov/brownJfieIds
Clean Water
-------
ew Markets "ax Credits
Brownfields Solutions Series
I
A brownfield is a property on which expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by the presence, or perceived
presence, of contamination. EPA's Brownfields Program provides grants to fund environmental assessment, cleanup, and
job training activities. Additionally, EPA seeks to strengthen the marketplace and encourages stakeholders to leverage the
resources needed to clean up and redevelop brownfields.
This Brownfields Solutions factsheet is intended for brownfields stakeholders interested in how the U.S. Department of the
Treasury's New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) Program can be used as a financing mechanism in brownfields cleanup and
redevelopment. The NMTC Program is a development tool designed to stimulate the economies of low-income communities.
The Program's tax credits, and the investment spurred by them, help to make brownfields projects in low-income communities
financially viable.
What is the New
Markets Tax Credit
Program?
Successful brownfields cleanup and
redevelopment projects turn idle
land into thriving centers for busi-
ness, housing, or industry. While
brownfields are often located in
lower-income communities, a site's
location is not usually a deterrent in
itself. Financing often presents the
most significant obstacle; institu-
tions are sometimes reluctant to
lend money to a project with poten-
tial environmental liability issues.
However, the Community Renewal
Tax Relief Act of 2000 provides a
financing option that can benefit
brownfields cleanup and redevelop-
ment projects.
This legislation established the New
Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) Pro-
gram to promote economic devel-
opment in rural and urban low-in-
come communities. The Program
is a federal tax initiative designed to
increase the amount of investment
capital available to business and
economic development programs in
low-income communities, many of
which are affected by brownfields.
The NMTC is administered by
the Community Development
Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund
under the U.S. Department of the
Treasury. The CDFI Fund was cre-
ated for the sole purpose of expand-
ing the availability of credit, invest-
ment capital, and financial services
in distressed urban and rural com-
munities. Each year, tax credits
are allocated for distribution to
certain qualifying entities through
the CDFI Fund. These qualifying
community groups are known as
Community Development Entities,
or CDEs.
Tne $15 billion, NMTC Program
provides private-sector investors
(e.g., banks, insurance companies,
corporations, and individuals) with
federal income tax credits in return
for new investments in eligible busi-
nesses, ranging from small business
startups to real estate development.
Brownfields cleanup and redevelop-
ment projects often fall under these
NMTC qualifications.
-------
The New Markets
Tax Credit Process
This flowchart illustrates how the
NMTC Program functions in four
stages.
First, an entity applies to the CDFI
Fund, for certification as a CDE.
Entities can apply at any time of
the year. Once an organization is
certified as a CDE, the designation
will last for the life of the organiza-
tion as long as the CDE continues
to comply with the NMTC Pro-
gram requirements.
Once certified, the CDE engages in
a competitive application process
for the tax credit allocation. The
CDFI Fund evaluates NMTC al-
location applications in four areas:
business strategy, capitalization
strategy, management capacity,
and community impact. Certain
criteria also help the CDFI Fund
determine if an entity is well suited
to receive an allocation of credits.
For example, the applying entity
must indicate the percentage of
qualified, low-income community
investments that will be used to
finance activities in certain geo-
graphic areas, including brown-
fields. The higher the percentage of
applicable community investments
indicated on the application, the
better the applicant will score under
the Community Impact section of
the NMTC Allocation Application.
The NMTC allocation applications
are due in the Fall with recipients
being announced the following
Spring. If the application is suc-
cessful, the Fund awards a tax credit
allocation to the CDE.
Third, the CDE secures investors
through the sale of stock or issuance
of an equity interest in exchange for
those tax credits.
Finally, the CDE uses the resulting
investor equity to make investments
in low-income communities.
What is a Qualifying
CDE?
In order to qualify as a CDE, the
entity must be a corporation or
partnership that has a mission of
serving, or providing investment
capital, for low-income communities
or persons. The group must also
maintain accountability to residents
of low-income communities
through resident representation
on governing or advisory boards.
CDEs can include organizations
such as community development
corporations (CDCs), community
development financial institutions,
community development venture
capital funds, small business
development corporations,
community loan funds, specialized
small business investment
companies, and others. These
organizations are often the catalysts
behind successful brownfields
How do CDEs use their
investments?
After a CDE has received an
allocation of tax credits, it
can begin to receive money
from investors. A CDE can
use this capital to make loans
to or investments in qualified
businesses, invest in or loan to
other CDEs, purchase qualified
loans from other CDEs, or
provide financial counseling
to businesses or community
residents. While all of a CDE's
loans must be targeted to the
low-income area identified by
the CDE, there is significant
flexibility in the types of
businesses and development
activities that NMTC
investments can support.
Gives Credits to
CDFI Fund
Give credits to (against Federal Income tax)\
Investors
Community
Development
Entity
(CDE)
stock or capital interest in
redevelopment projects. Both
nonprofit and for-profit groups may
apply to be certified by the CDFI
Fund. These groups are evaluated
on the same criteria. However, since
nonprofit corporations cannot sell
stock or issue equity, a for-profit
affiliate will have to be set up in
order to receive the tax credits.
Low-Income
Communities
Invests in or Lends
rto Qualified Active
Lower Income
Community
Businesses (QALICBs)
Which May Include
Brownfields
Redevelopment Projects
Provides Financial
Counseling & Related
Services
Purchases Loans
from CDEs
Which May Include
Community Development
Loans for Brownfields
Redevelopment Projects
^Invests in or Lends
to CDEs
Which May Finance
Brownfields
Redevelopment Projects
A low-income community generally is a census tract with a poverty rate of at least 20%
or with median family income of up to 80% of the area median family income.
-2-
-------
The NMTC provides a unique
financing source for brownfields
cleanup and redevelopment.
Brownfields stakeholders have three
primary options to take advantage
of the NMTC Program.
The first option for stakeholders is
to apply to existing CDEs to fund
their projects. Of the 2004 second
round CDE allocatees, several have
identified brownfields redevelop-
ment as specific goals for their eco-
nomic development efforts. Brown-
fields stakeholders are encouraged
to access the CDFI Web site for the
location of CDEs in their region.
The Web site also provides profiles
of community revitalization proj-
ects the CDE is targeting and can
guide stakeholders towards pos-
sible brownfields project financing
(http-.llwww. cdfifund.gov).
The second option is for stakehold-
ers to apply for CDE certification
themselves, apply for an allocation
of tax credits, and offer the tax
credits to potential investors. As a
certified CDE, a brownfields stake-
holder or group can best identify
which cleanup and redevelopment
projects will most help the local
community. Although this process
may be more complex than the first
option, it is viable for entities com-
mitted to large scale or long-term
brownfields efforts.
The third option for stakeholders is
to apply and become certified as a
CDE, then apply to receive equity
financing from other CDEs, which
have an allocation of New Markets
CDEs Investing in Brownfields Projects
Several CDEs are exploring investments in brownfields projects, such as:
• Great Lakes Region Sustainability Funds LLC: This CDE will make loans
and take equity positions in businesses and real estate projects in low-income
communities in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. These investments will focus
on remediating and redeveloping area brownfields. The NMTC will allow Great
Lakes to offer new products including tenant loans, financing for brownfields
projects, financing for lead abatement, and technical assistance to low-income
municipalities and nonprofits.
• Shorebank Enterprise Pacific: In order to assist low-income communities
in the Pacific Northwest, this CDE will subordinate debt and equity to
environmentally sensitive commercial properties, industrial properties,
brownfields, and community development real estate projects.
• MassDevelopment New Markets LLC: Four real estate development projects
that are not only on brownfields, but of critical importance to four of the most
deeply distressed communities in the state, will be financed by this CDE.
• Milwaukee Economic Development Corporation: A goal to provide "gap"
financing for businesses located in distressed areas of the city, including
abandoned brownfields properties.
For more information on these or other CDEs, please visit http://www.cdfifund.gov.
Tax Credits. One of the purposes
of a CDE, as defined earlier, can be
to invest in projects of other CDEs.
Investment by one CDE in another
CDE is viable when the proceeds
are used for a qualified low-income
community investments. This
can include funding to businesses
owned in whole or part by a CDE
or equity investment in, or loan to,
a CDE.
There are several advantages as-
sociated with using the NMTC
Program for brownfields project
funding. For example, a CDE can
structure a more favorable deal than
traditional lending institutions for
brownfields properties. Traditional
lending institutions may be more
reluctant to lend to brownfields
projects compared to projects that
are perceived as less risky due to
fewer environmental complications.
In addition, CDEs may offer loans
for pre-development on projects
that are unlikely to secure tradi-
tional funding. Loans can be used
for pre-development activities such
as land acquisition, environmental
remediation, demolition, site prepa-
ration, construction, renovation,
and infrastructure improvements.
Brownfields stakeholders may also
apply for funding to assist with
cleanup, and additional funding for
redevelopment and construction ac-
tivities. In certain situations CDEs
can also provide technical assistance
for brownfields cleanup.
Loans from CDEs for brownfields
projects can be structured to pro-
vide more flexibility and lower
interest rates. According to Donna
Ducharme of the Great Lakes
Region Sustainability Fund, "CDEs
are typically willing to lend at cost
to nonprofits and government enti-
ties." This is a direct advantage for
local or municipal government or-
ganizations managing a brownfields
project. Ms. Ducharme also notes
that CDE loans for brownfields
-------
Three Ways Brownfields
Stakholders Can Access
the NMTC Program for
Project Financing
• Stakeholders may apply to an
existing CDE to fund their projects
• Stakeholders may apply for CDE
certification and apply for an
allocation of New Markets Tax
Credits
• Stakeholders may apply for CDE
projects are typically structured to
allow a two-year period for cleanup.
CDEs involved with brownfields
cleanup and redevelopment projects
have reported "packaging" various
funding sources together. Low-
income community development
projects may be eligible for a wide
range of federal and local financ-
ing credits and incentives, ranging
from Tax-Increment Financing to
Community Development Block
Grants. Funding can also be used
in conjunction with EPA Brown-
fields Grants to complete pre-devel-
opment activities such as cleanup
(http:llwww. epa.gov/brownfields).
Great Lakes and MassDevelopment
New Markets LLC cite examples
of loans including those for retail
centers, mixed-use commercial and
residential properties, cleanup of a
ground water plume on a property
to be used as a recreational-vehicle
park, and cleanup of a property to
be developed into a professional
office park.
A brownfields stakeholder that
is pursuing multiple brownfields
cleanup and redevelopment ef-
forts or projects of significant scale
can benefit from the New Markets
Tax Credits. Whether applying to
become certified as a CDE and ap-
plying for a tax credit allocation, or
applying to receive project funding
from an existing CDE, the NMTC
Program offers unique financing op-
portunities for brownfields cleanup
and redevelopment.
How do Investors Receive Tax
Credits from a CDE?
The credit provided to the investor
totals 39% of the investment in a CDE
and is claimed over a seven year credit
allowance period.
For example, the Fund awards a tax credit
allocation of $1 million to a CDE, which
offers the tax credit to investors. Ten
investors each invest $100,000 in return
for the tax credit. Each investor can
claim 5%, or $5000 annually from their
federal income tax in years one to three
of the tax credit.
In years four
through seven,
the investors
can claim 6%,
or $6000 per
year. The total
tax credit value to
the investor over
seven years is
$39,000, or 39%.
YR1:$5000
YR 2: $5000
YR 3: $5000
YR 4: $6000
YR 5: $6000
YR 6: $6000
YR 7: $6000
Total: $39,000
Source: http://www.cdfifund.gov/docs/
nmtc/2005/OutreachPresentation.ppt
For More Information
EPA Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment - Funding and Financing for Brownfields:
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/mmatters.htm
The Funding and Financing for Brownfields Web site provides links to additional resources, such as factsheets, guides, and other Web sites, that
provide information on financing issues encountered in brownfields cleanup and redevelopment.
Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund:
httD://www.cdfifund.aov
The CDFI Fund Web site provides access to CDE and NMTC application materials and workshops, a map of qualified census tracts and
counties, and other information about the NMTC Program.
Brownfields Solutions Series
New Markets Tax Credits
Solid Waste
and Emergency
Response (5105T)
EPA-560-F-05-223
June 2005
www. epa. gov/brownfields/
------- |