Good afternoon, My name is Vernice Miller-Travis, and I currently serve as the Executive Director of the Partnership for Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment, based in Baltimore, Maryland. I also serve as a member of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), where I chair the Waste and Facility Siting subcommittee. Through my participation in the NEJAC I have worked closely over a period of several years with EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response in the development of it's National Brownfields Action Agenda. In my previous appearances before this sub-committee I represented the Natural Resources Defense Council and the environmental justice community. Today I am pleased to add my voice to the chorus of those that support this legislation. I would also like to take this opportunity to introduce Ms. Donele Wilkens, Founding Director of Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice. Ms. Wilkens is one of the leading environmental justice advocates in the state of Michigan, and serves on the Detroit Brownfields Redevelopment Authority. She is submitting her own comments about this legislation for your consideration representing the perspective of community residents at or near urban Brownfields sites. Today I am pleased to be able to speak affirmatively about S. 2700 and it's provisions, as opposed to speaking against the legislation which has been my posture in my previous appearances before this body. However, I do have a few areas of concern about some of the provisions contained within this legislation which I will share with you this afternoon. General Comments
My general review of the legislation in consultation with members of the Board of the Partnership for Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment, as well as consultations with several other Brownfields stakeholders is that S. 2700 is a well crafted, useful, creative approach to Brownfields redevelopment. That being said I want to raise the following general concerns about this legislation.
The bill does not address the question of the presence of lead and/or asbestos removal from buildings on Brownfields sites (buildings that themselves will either be refurbished or demolished). The bill does not address the remediation of abandoned gas stations as an eligible recipient activity for federal Brownfields grant moneys. My biggest area of concern is the blanket delegation of enforcement authority for Brownfields redevelopment to State Voluntary Clean-up Programs. The legislation assumes that all states have the resources to implement a vigorous VCP program that can assume the enforcement responsibilities that EPA has heretofore held. For a variety of reasons this assumption is not accurate. All states are not equal in terms of the resources available to them to implement and maintain strong VCP's. Some states as a matter of political philosophy are opposed to vigorous enforcement actions that they believe will diminish the interest by private developers in purchasing and redeveloping Brownfields sites within their states. In these states local communities, especially low income and communities of color, are facing an up hill battle when trying to get state and local agencies to balance economic development considerations with the need for environmental and public health considerations. To address this particular concern I suggest that the legislation include language that states would have to demonstrate to EPA the existence, and effectiveness of a state Voluntary Clean-up Program before the state could receive delegated enforcement authority for a Brownfields program. Through this process the state would need to certify that they indeed have an established program of corrective action to clean-up and redevelop Brownfields sites. The state would also need to demonstrative that their corrective action program has been and can be implemented consistently across the state in all communities regardless of race, ethnicity or economic status. Title II of the Bill - Brownfields Liability Clarifications - is perhaps the most creative and forthright legislative attempt to address innocent third party and prospective purchasers in the chain of liability, while maintaining and preserving the principle of strict, joint and several liability. The proposed amount of the appropriation of federal moneys to accompany this bill is a welcome increase in proposed federal Brownfields dollars. As is the definition of eligible entities who can access these dollars (see specific comments) and the expanded definition of what is an eligible recipient activity or use. The section of the bill entitled {C} Mechanisms and resources to provide meaningful opportunities for public participation, and (D) Mechanisms for approval of a clean up plan, are especially appreciated as delineated sections of this legislation. Lastly, the language included in Sec. 128. Brownfields Revitalization Funding, sub section (3) CONSIDERATIONS - (A) "the extent to which a grant will facilitate the creation of, preservation of, or addition to a park, is a welcome addition to the legislative thinking about what constitutes a beneficial reuse of a Brownfields site? It also affirms the perspective that a beneficial reuse can be something other than a commercial or industrial reuse of a Brownfields site. Additionally sub section (B) the extent to which a grant will meet the needs of a community is the first legislative attempt to codify the needs of local communities as a paramount consideration in Brownfields redevelopment considerations.
Specific Comments
· Title I. Sec. 128. BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION FUNDING. "DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE ENTITY. The term "eligible entity" should include community development corporations and non profit organizations.
· In the same section the sub-section entitled (3) RANKING CRITERIA, (B) The potential to stimulate economic development The definition of economic development should specifically delineate enhanced economic opportunity for community residents and area small businesses. Currently economic development is being defined as a remediated site that is being reused. The reuse does not always create new or enhanced economic opportunity for area residents and existing small businesses.
· Letter (I) of this section - The extent to which the grant provides for involvement of the local community in the process of making decisions We suggest that here you insert the following recommendation: with respect to establishing a process for the involvement of local communities in the process of Brownfields decision making a recipient can utilize the ASTM E 1984-98 Standard Guide for the Sustainable Restoration of Brownfields Properties. This is a multi-stakeholder guidance which I and several members of the Partnership for Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment helped to draft.
· Section 203. INNOCENT LANDOWNERS, sub section (iii) CRITERIA (II) should read as follows: Interviews with past and present owners, operators, and occupants of the facility, and past and present residents or commercial businesses at or near the site in question, for the purposes of gathering information regarding
· Section 129. STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS, sub section (1) ENFORCEMENT, sub section {C} PUBLIC RECORD should read as follows: The public record shall identify whether or not the site, on completion of the response action, will be suitable for unrestricted use and, if not, shall identify the institutional controls relied on in the remedy and how the institutional control will be enforced and monitored over time.
Conclusion
I believe that this bill goes a long way toward advancing the cause of Brownfields clean-up and redevelopment. I want to caution the drafters of this bill to recognize that all your efforts to craft a comprehensive and inclusive bill will be for naught, if state and local government entities do not take the opportunities afforded in this bill to work with local communities in meaningful and measurable ways toward the goal of Brownfields redevelopment and community revitalization.
The environmental justice perspective on Brownfields redevelopment is that these sites must be viewed as a component of a broader economic and community revitalization strategy. A strategy that seeks to rebuild and revive these long dormant communities into healthy, safe and economically viable areas. This is what is meant by the term "sustainable Brownfields redevelopment."
Back home in our respective communities, we are witnessing Brownfields programs and projects that promote economic opportunities for entities other than the long suffering residents and small business owners in our nations most economically and environmentally deprived communities, where the bulk of the Brownfields sites are located. We are also witnessing successful Brownfields projects that have mushroomed into wholesale gentrification of our communities, for example: Jersey City, New Jersey, Downtown Detroit, the 125th Street commercial corridor in Harlem, New York, and many other examples across the country. We believe that real economic development is that which enhances the quality of life of community residents and improves economic opportunities for community businesses.
We believe that the issue of sustainable Brownfields redevelopment is crucial to pursuing a different path toward community redevelopment and revitalization in this new century. Sound and sustainable Brownfields redevelopment is one of the critical issues of our time, and this bill takes a significant step in the right legislative direction.
It is clear to me that the crafting of this bill was achieved through major bipartisan give-and-take and consensus building. Please know that your staff efforts and Congressional leadership are very much appreciated, and we look forward to your continued support of Brownfields redevelopment and community revitalization.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you on the "Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2000."