Georgia Brownfield Tax Incentive

Georgia provides tax incentives for Brownfield redevelopment. The Brownfield tax law allows property owners to apply for “preferential assessment” of the Brownfield property. The preferential assessment reduces property taxes for ten years, or until the certified assessment and cleanup costs are recouped, whichever occurs first.

MORE

Oklahoma Brownfield Conference - May 22-23, OK City

Rethink ... Reinvest ... Reinvent Convening at one of Oklahoma City's Brownfields success stories, the historic Skirvin Hilton Hotel, you will hear from industry leaders about the economic, social, and environmental impact of Brownfields redevelopment.  Brownfields are properties that have lost value due to real or perceived environmental contamination. 

Who Should Attend:

Realtors & Real Estate Appraisers

Developers & Investors

Commercial/Industrial Property Owners & Bankers

Attorneys & Environmental Consultants

Environmental Professionals

Nonprofit Organizations

Architects, Engineers, Surveyors, & Planners

Governmental Officials involved in Redevelopment Projects
Local, State, & Federal Agencies

Registration Fee:
Includes program, breakfast and lunch for both days & Networking Reception at the Petroleum Club.  Payment can be made by American Express, Mastercard, VISA, Check or Purchase Order.

Private Sector Registration:

Includes private entities

$200     Early Bird Registration through March 30th

$250     Registration through May 21st

$300     Onsite Registration

 

Public Sector Registration:

Includes federal, state, and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions

$100     Early Bird Registration through March 30th

$125     Registration through May 21st

$150     Onsite Registration

 

Student Registration:

Includes programming, breakfast and lunch for both days

Must have a current student ID

Scholarship opportunities available.  Click Here to learn more.

$50       Early Bird Registration through March 30th

$75       Registration through May 21st

$100     Onsite Registration

 

Additional Event Options:

$20        Optional Bus Tour of OKC Brownfields Projects

$60       Additional Ticket for Networking Reception at the Petroleum Club

 

CEU Opportunities:

By attending this two-day event, Oklahoma Corporation Commission Licensed Remediation Consultants can earn 16 hours of CEU’s. This is the amount needed every two years to stay licensed.

 

MORE

 

Beyond the brownfields: New Belgium's Asheville project means land-use recycling

(Source: Mountain Express, S. Andrew)

Along with the prospect of a new case of the brews, the Asheville site proposed for New Belgium Brewing Co.’s new East Coast facility would get cleaned up: Part of the Craven Street property qualifies for North Carolina’s brownfields program, a federal and state initiative that streamlines the redevelopment of property that may be contaminated.

The 17.5-acre site once hosted the WNC Stockyards, a hay warehouse, a filling station, and an automobile repair-and-painting shop. It’s property that, among others in our region, has been awaiting “a savvy developer to revitalize it,” says Kate O’Hara, project manager at the Regional Brownfields Initiative, located at the Land of Sky Regional Council.

MORE

Durham’s Cigarette Factories Focus of Downtown Redevelopment

The former American Tobacco cigarette factory in Durham has become a poster child for mixed-use urban redevelopment. Its eye-catching collection of restaurants, bars, offices, and shops, along with several other new projects in the area that followed its lead, has brought about a stunning rebirth of Durham’s core. The number of people who call downtown Durham home has risen from just 200 in the mid-1990s to more than 1,500 today. Many live in retrofitted lofts that take advantage of the quirky industrial architecture of several old tobacco warehouses.

For more information:

http://dukemagazine.duke.edu/issues/030412/durham1.html

The EPA Brownfields Program Produces Widespread Environmental and Economic Benefits

EPA’s Brownfields Program empowers states, communities, and other stakeholders to work together to prevent, assess, safely cleanup, and sustainably reuse brownfields. Revitalizing brownfield sites creates benefits at the site and throughout the community.

Leveraging Money for Assessment, Cleanup and Revitalization of Brownfields
Based on data from grantee reporting and through the Program’s ACRES database, through fiscal year 2011, on average, $18.01 is leveraged for each EPA Brownfields dollar expended at a brownfield from Assessment, Cleanup, and Revolving Loan Fund cooperative agreements since Program inception.

Leveraging Jobs from EPA Brownfields Dollars Spent to Assess, Clean and Revitalize Brownfields
Based on data through fiscal year 2011, on average, 7.43 jobs are leveraged per $100,000 of EPA Brownfields funding expended on Assessment, Cleanup and Revolving Loan Fund cooperative agreements since program inception. As of April 2012, 75,590 jobs have been leveraged through the Brownfields Program including the State and Tribal 128(a) program since its inception.

Environmental (Air and Water) Benefits of Brownfields Redevelopment
The EPA Brownfields Program has conducted five pilot studies, which concluded that redeveloped brownfield sites tend to have greater location efficiency than alternative development scenarios at greenfield sites, resulting in a 32 to 57 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled associated with these sites and a reduction in air pollution emissions, including greenhouse gases. These same site comparisons show an estimated 47 to 62 percent reduction in stormwater runoff. The studies suggest a range of impacts due to regional variation in development and travel patterns.

Additional Benefits of Brownfields Redevelopment
The EPA Brownfields Program has funded a study to assess the impact, or economic benefit, of  brownfields grants on residential property values. The study concluded that residential property values increased between 2 and 3 percent once a nearby brownfield was assessed or cleaned up. The study further concluded that cleaning up a brownfield can increase overall property values within a one mile radius by $0.5 to $1.5 million. Additionally, initial anecdotal surveys indicate a reduction in crime in recently revitalized brownfield areas.

Opportunity to Expand Assessment Program and Leverage from Benefits of Agency’s Removal Program
As is apparent from the numbers, there is a huge demand for site assessment work. The Program can expand upon recent policy clarifications to use site assessment dollars for environmental site assessments in conjunction with efforts to promote area-wide planning among areas and corridors of brownfield sites. The use of funds for these purposes is particularly important for economically distressed areas to enable the identification of infrastructure capacity along with potential end uses. Also, in certain instances when environmental site assessments reveal immediate threats to the environment or human health, a more programmatic use of EPA Removal funds to address these threats could be implemented.

Greater & Greener: Re-Imagining Parks for 21st Century Cities

The Premier Forum for Park Innovation

City Parks Alliance’s International Urban Parks Conference, Greater & Greener: Re-Imagining Parks for 21st Century Cities, in New York City July 14-17, 2012, will bring together park and recreation leaders; community development professionals; municipal and federal government staff; elected officials; academics; city planners; neighborhood leaders; and private developers to celebrate, debate, organize, connect and share with others working to change the landscape in cities across the nation and around the world. As our planet becomes more urban, new and revitalized parks are critical to making our cities greater and greener—places that thrive environmentally, economically and socially.

If you want to learn more about the conference, our offerings and the scheduled speakers, head over here…

TODAY: Free Webinar: Economic (Re)Development and Solar

Looking for something to do with that former landfill?  Interested in renewable energy? Communities across the country have brownfields, capped landfills, and other pieces of vacant and underutilized land, which have the potential to be successfully redeveloped with solar. By focusing energy development on these sites, they can help to take pressure for new energy development off undeveloped land while providing site developers with access to existing infrastructure.

The US EPA’s RE-Powering America’s Land Program encourages renewable energy development, including solar, on current and formerly contaminated mine sites when energy development on these sites is aligned with the community’s vision.  RE- Powering America’s Land identifies the renewable energy potential of these sites and provides other resources to local governments and other stakeholders interested in reusing these sites for renewable energy development. The webinar will also explore case study examples of projects that have been developed on reused land.

MORE

Knoxville Redevelopment talk focuses on traffic

Source: H. Hickman, Knoxville News Sentinel (TN)
April 12, 2012

The latest public discussion Thursday on a proposed retail project near the University of Tennessee campus ostensibly was held to consider the developers' request for a record $10 million in local 
incentives.  Once again, however, the plans prompted more questions on how the roughly 12-acre brownfield redevelopment - anchored by a Walmart and a Publix grocery - would fit into the surrounding traffic patchwork.

Building on the former Fulton Bellows industrial site, the new University Commons shopping center would have access from both Cumberland Avenue, just west of Volunteer Boulevard, and by way of a new bridge-to-a-bridge ramp connecting to Joe Johnson Drive on the existing span between UT's main and agriculture campuses....

MORE

SC - Superfund Job Training Initiative, brownfield grants workshop

SOURCE: The Times and Democrat, J. Durgan

DENMARK — A workshop designed to answer residents’ questions about the Savannah River Site and programs related to the facility was held March 29 at Denmark Technical College with more than three dozen attending.

The Imani Group, a community-based, nonprofit organization, was the host for the event that was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, EPA Region 4 and the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control.

The Rev. Brendolyn L. Jenkins, executive director of the Imani Group, said the organization focuses on environmental justice issues, criminal justice issues, grassroots organizing, youth leadership development, counseling, organizational management, diversity development, seminar/workshop development and facilitation and event development and management.

Jenkins encouraged participants to ask questions about environmental justice, the Superfund Jobs Training Initiative, involvement of other state and federal agencies at SRS and opportunities for agency grants.
Also on hand was de’Lisa Carrico of the U.S. Department of Energy.

“SRS, a nuclear reservation located on land in Aiken, Allendale and Barnwell counties adjacent to the Savannah River, ... was constructed during the early 1950s to produce the basic materials used in the fabrication of nuclear weapons, primarily tritium and plutonium-239, in support of our nation’s defense programs,” Carrico said.

He said five reactors were built to produce the materials as well as two chemical separations plants, a heavy water extraction plant, a nuclear fuel and target fabrication facility, a tritium extraction facility and waste management facilities. The site employed more than 10,000 at one time.

“The site was built to refine nuclear materials for deployment in nuclear weapons. It covers 310 square miles ... It is owned by the U.S. Department of Energy. The management and operating contract is held by Savannah River Nuclear Solutions LLC, and the Liquid Waste Operations contract is held by Savannah River Remediation, a team of companies led by the URS Corporation,” Carrico said.

MORE

Bunnell, FL Advisory Council gets brownfield update

SOURCE: News-Journal Online, A. London

BUNNELL -- After spending a day last week in the greenery of the Princess Place Preserve, the Economic Opportunity Advisory Council got an update about brownfield redevelopment efforts earlier this week.
The county set up the Flagler Economic Enhancement District to create brownfield redevelopment areas, said Greg Rawls, economic development manager. Properties in those areas are eligible for a variety of incentives and tax credits, including ones for job creation and site cleanup.

Brownfield sites are former industrial sites that have some contamination or are perceived to have contamination, Rawls explained.  For targeted industry sectors, business owners can receive up to $2,500 in job creation tax credits, Rawls said, with $2,000 coming from the state. Rawls said efforts to redevelop former industrial sites have changed perceptions about brownfields designations. Rawls said property owners were invited to join the economic enhancement district, but are not obligated to keep their property with that designation. He said property owners can opt in or out of the brownfield area.

Rawls said the county began looking at brownfield redevelopment as an economic development option when the former Food Lion grocery store on State Road 100 in Flagler Beach closed. Among the areas included in the county's economic enhancement district are the county landfill area off of Old Kings Road, areas around the Flagler County Airport, the Town Center area in Palm Coast, Steel Rail Industrial Park in Bunnell and other industrial sites in the county including Pine Lakes and Hargrove Grade.

MORE

Mississippi House Bill 1265 Redevelopment Act dies in committee

Source: Environmental News Service

A bill to expand the definition of "contaminated site" and to remove the sunset provision of the Mississippi Economic Redevelopment Act (§57-91-1) died in committee last week.  Prior to sunsetting, the Mississippi Economic Redevelopment Act, administered by the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA), was designed to encourage economic development on and around one site in Vicksburg, Mississippi. To promote redevelopment, this act provided incentives to defray the remediation costs associated with cleaning up the contaminated property.

By expanding the definition to include all brownfield agreement sites, counties and/or municipalities that contain properties with environmental contamination were able to apply for approval for this incentive. Once MDA granted approval for the project, all sales, income, and franchise taxes collected from businesses located in the redevelopment project area would be deposited into a special fund that would be used to reimburse developers for approved cleanup costs. Reimbursement to developers would be made semi-annually for a period of up to 10 years, with a maximum distribution to the developer of two and a half times the allowable remediation costs.

MORE

Former Sawmill Marina property returns to market as official brownfield site

Source: J. O'Neal, Greater Wilmington Business Journal
April 12, 2012

A prime piece of downtown real estate is reemerging on the marketplace as part of the North Carolina Brownfield Program.  Brian Eckel, managing partner and co-founder of Wilmington-based Cape 
Fear Commercial, announced Thursday the former Sawmill Marina site is priced at $4.4 million - the first time an offering price has been listed for the property.

The area in and around Sawmill Point was once used for lumberyards, shipping terminals, warehouses and railroad operations. The Wilmington-based commercial brokerage firm is now selling the 41-slip 
marina and 8.06-acre parcel on behalf of SunTrust Bank....

MORE

EPA Region 6 Targeted Brownfield Assessments

Targeted Brownfield Assessments

What is a Brownfield?
The Brownfields Revitalization Act, signed by the President on January 11, 2002, defines Brownfields as “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.”   The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Brownfields Program supports the cleanup and revitalization of brownfields in local communities.

What is a Targeted Brownfield Assessment?
A Target Brownfield Assessment (TBA) is a free service the EPA Region 6 Brownfields Team provides to communities to support their eligible brownfield projects.  The services include brownfield inventories, area-wide planning, site environmental assessments and investigations, and site cleanup planning.  The states located in Region 6 (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas) have similar programs to provide environmental assessment services. The TBA brochure provides more details.

Who Can Request a TBA?
Public (local units of governments), quasi-public (community development organizations), Tribal governments, and non-profit entities can request EPA TBA services. 

Privately-owned sites can be submitted as candidate sites, if the redevelopment will result in significant benefits to the general public.  Land owners (private or public) must voluntarily sign a site access consent agreement for TBA services to be provided.

 
How to Request a TBA?
You should first contact your local governmental agencies to determine whether a community-wide brownfieldsassessment grant exists in the area.  If a community-wide brownfield assessment grant recipient does not exist in the area or the grant recipient can not or chooses not to provide the requested assessment service, the respective state should be contacted next.  The State Brownfield Coordinators are listed below.   If the state cannot or chooses not to provide the assessment service, the site can then be referred to EPA Region 6. 

To request TBA services from the EPA Region 6 Brownfields Team, simply complete the R6 Request for TBA and the 2011 TBA Access Agreement forms. Click the "Submit by Email" button located at the top of the request form to submit. The Consent form will need to be scanned and emailed, or mailed to Janet Brooks, at the following address:.

Janet Brooks, Brownfields Program (6SF-VB)
U.S. EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733

State Brownfields Coordinators

ARKANSAS
Terry Sligh
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
501-683-0822
terry@adeq.state.ar.us

LOUISIANA
Roger Gingles or Duane Wilson
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
225-219-3192
brownfields@la.gov

NEW MEXICO
Dale Doremus
New Mexico Environment Department
505-827-2754
dale.doremus@state.nm.us

OKLAHOMA
Rita R. Kottke
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
rita.kottke@deq.ok.gov
405-702-5157

Patricia Billingsley
p.billingsley@occemail.com
Oklahoma Corporation Commission
405-522-2758

TEXAS
Christine Whitney (Hazardous Sites)
Texas Department of Environmental Quality
512-239-0843
Christine.Whitney@tceq.texas.gov
Aimee Beveridge (Petroleum Sites)
Railroad Commission of Texas
512-463-7995
aimee.beveridge@rrc.state.tx.us

Information

If you have questions about EPA’s TBA program, please contact Janet Brooks at 214-665-7598, brooks.janet@epa.gov.
EPA TBA Brochure (PDF, 2 pages, 433 KB) (About PDF)

EPA Region 4 conducts a limited number of Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments for communities within the Region. A WORD version of the Application Form is found here:

http://www.epa.gov/region4/rcra/bflr/documents/tbaapplicationr.doc

Here's what it looks like.

EPA Region 4 - Targeted Brownfield Assessment

Application Form

Applicant Organization ____________________________________________________

Address_________________________________________________________________

City______________________________  State __________________  Zip___________

Contact person ___________________________________________________________

Phone _________________  Fax _________________ E-mail _____________________

Applicant is: (check one)   local government           state/tribal government

council of government          non-profit      other_____________________________

Site Name _______________________________________________________________

Site Address _____________________________________________________________

City______________________________  State __________________  Zip __________

Current Site ownership:          Name___________________________________________

                                                Address ________________________________________

                                                City ____________________  State _______  Zip _______

                                                Phone _______________  E-mail ____________________

Site Zoning ____________________  Total acreage of site (approx) ________________

# Buildings on Site          Approx Sq Footage             Describe general building conditions

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Is the property owned by the Applicant?  ______________________________________

If property is not owned by the applicant, does the applicant envision difficulty in obtaining legal permission to enter the property to conduct environmental site assessment activities?   YES                   NO

To the best of your knowledge, briefly describe any involvement of your state’s environmental agency (e.g., FDEP, SCDHEC, ADEM, EPA) in enforcement or oversight of assessment/cleanup activities at the candidate site:  ____________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Past Uses of Site (type of manufacturing, industry, residential, etc)    and Approx Dates

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Prior Assessment Activities     None               Unknown

Describe prior site assessment activities or attach “conclusion” section of report(s):

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Site Assessment Needs

Phase I           Phase II        Develop cleanup options and cost estimates

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Anticipated Future Use:  Residential  Recreational  Commercial/Retail   Industrial

Describe applicants proposed vision for reuse:  _________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Describe proposed funding sources for any site evaluation/cleanup and current or past evidence of developer interest:  ______________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Briefly describe any public interest and/or community involvement in site reuse planning: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Submit completed form to:      Bob Rosen

Targeted Brownfield Assessment Program

                                                US Environmental Protection Agency – Region 4

                                                61 Forsyth Street S.W.

                                                Atlanta GA  30303

                                                Phone:  404-562-8761

                                                Fax:  404-562-8689

Or email to:  rosen.bob@epa.gov

EPA will review the information contained in this application and may contact you with additional questions and/or to arrange a site visit.

Is your site eligible for EPA Brownfield Grant funding?

EPA Region 4 has created the following list of questions that you should answer to determine site eligibility.

EPA R4 BROWNFIELD GRANT

SITE ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION OUTLINE

To be used for determining site eligibility for Phase II Environmental Site Assessments and Cleanups.

A.  GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Grantee/Applicant Name:

2. If Grant:

Grant Number:

Grant Type (104(k) Assessment, 104(k) RLF):

3. Work to be conducted (Phase II Assessment, Phase III Assessment, Cleanup):

4. How much funding do you anticipate spending on the site?  Please note that there are funding limitations for site-specific activities.  For assessments, no more than $200,000 per site, with the possibility of a waiver for up to $350,000.  For cleanups, no more than $200,000 per site.

5. Date of proposed work:

6. Date of this document:

B.  BASIC SITE INFORMATION

1.  Site Name:

2.  Site Address (and County): 

3.  Who is the current owner of the site?

4. Describe grantee’s or applicants relationship with the owner, and the owner’s role in the work to be performed:

5. Known or Suspected Contaminant(s) (check one):

□ Hazardous Substances

□ Mine Scarred Lands

□ Controlled Substances

□ Hazardous Substances Commingled with Petroleum   

□ Petroleum Only

6. Identify when and how the site became contaminated; describe previous known uses.  If the land has been vacant for many years, why does the grantee think that it is contaminated?

7.  Does the site meet the definition of a Brownfield Site?  (Is the site “real property, the expansion, redevelopment or reuse of which is complicated by the presence or potential presence of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants”?)

□ YES  □ NO

C.  SITES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING BY STATUTE

The grantee must supply the following information to the best of their knowledge:

1.  Is the facility listed (or proposed for listing) on the National Priorities List?  □ YES  □ NO

2.  Is the facility subject to unilateral administrative orders, court orders, administrative orders on consent, or judicial consent decrees issued to or entered into by parties under CERCLA?

□ YES  □ NO

3.  Is the facility subject to the jurisdiction, custody, or control of the US government. (Land held in trust by the US government for an Indian tribe is eligible.)  □ YES  □ NO

Note: If the answer is YES to any of the above (C.1-3) the property is not eligible. 

D.  SITES ONLY ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING WITH A PROPERTY SPECIFIC DETERMINATION BY EPA:

Certain properties can only be approved with a Property Specific Determination by EPA.  The grantee must provide answers to the following questions to the best of their knowledge:

1.  Is the site/facility subject to a planned or ongoing CERCLA removal action?  □ YES  □ NO

2.  Has the site/facility been the subject of a unilateral administrative order, court order, an administrative order on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to or entered into by the parties, or been issued a permit by the U.S. 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 (SWDA)?  □ YES  □ NO

3.  Is the site/facility subject to corrective action orders under RCRA (sections 3004(u) or 3008(h)) and has there been a corrective action permit or order issued or modified to require corrective measures?  □ YES  □ NO

4.  Is the site/facility a land disposal unit that has submitted a RCRA closure notification under subtitle C of RCRA and is subject to closure requirements specified in a closure plan or permit?  □ YES  □ NO

5.  Has the site/facility had a release of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that is subject to remediation under TSCA?  □ YES  □ NO

6.  Has the site/facility received funding for remediation from the leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund?  □ YES  □ NO

Note: If the answer is YES to any of the above (D. 1-6), a property specific determination is required.  The grantee or TBA applicant must complete the remaining applicable portions of this outline and submit additional information, as outlined in Appendix A to this document.

E. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE/COMMINGLED CONTAMINATION SITES (for Petroleum only sites, skip to F.)

1.  Does the grantee own the site?  □ YES  □ NO

2.  Answer the following if the grantee is the current site owner.  (If the grantee is not the current site owner, skip to 3) :

           

a.      Is the owner a  □ Unit of State or Local Government  or  □ Other  

b.     If the owner is a governmental unit, how was the property acquired?  

     □ Tax Foreclosure    □ Donation    □ Eminent Domain    □ Bought it outright 

            □ Other (Explain):  

Date acquired:_____________________

             

c.      Do they have a defense to CERCLA liability?  (see FY12 ARC Guidelines)

□ YES – Involuntary Acquisition

            Bankruptcy, tax delinquency, abandonment, or other similar circumstances.

□ YES – Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser (BFPP)

Did the owner conduct Pre-purchase Inquiry (EPA All Appropriate Inquiry,

ASTM standards, or other) prior to acquiring property? 

□ YES  □ NO

Did the owner take reasonable steps with regards to the contamination at the site?

□ YES  □ NO

□ YES – Contiguous Property Owner

□ YES – Third Party or Innocent Land Owner

□ YES – Indian Tribe

□ NO

d.     Are they liable at the site as an □ Operator,  □ Arranger, or □ Transporter

OR  □ None Applicable

e.      Did all disposal of hazardous substances at the site occur before they acquired the property?  □ YES   □ NO

f.       Did they cause or contribute to any release of hazardous substances at the site?

□ YES   □ NO

3.         Answer the following if the grantee is not the site owner:

a.  Is the grantee potentially liable at the site as an □ Operator,  □ Arranger,  □ Transporter

b.  Is the grantee affiliated with the site owner (familial, contractual, financial)

OR  □ None Applicable

F.  PETROLEUM ONLY CONTAMINATION SITES

Petroleum sites need a written site eligibility determination by the state or EPA. 

1. If the state has made the petroleum eligibility determination, the grantee must provide EPA with the letter from the state.  

2.  If the state was unable to make the determination, EPA must make the determination consistent with the Guidelines (note that EPA staff will need to refer to the most recent ARC Guidelines to conduct the petroleum determination).  The grantee must provide information regarding the following:

a. Whether the site is of “relatively low risk” compared with other “petroleum-only” sites in the state.  Two key questions for this determination follow:

1. Have Leaking Underground Storage Tank funds been expended at this site?

□ YES  □ NO

2. Have Federal Oil Pollution Act response funds been expended at this site?

□ YES  □ NO

           

b.  Whether there is a viable responsible party at the site.  Key questions for this determination follow:

1. Was the site last acquired through tax foreclosure, abandonment or equivalent government proceedings? □ YES  □ NO

2. Has a responsible party been identified through:

a) a judgment rendered in a court of law or an administrative order that would require any party to assess, investigate, or cleanup the site; □ YES  □ NO    or

b) a filed enforcement action brought by federal or state authorities that would require any party to assess, investigate, or cleanup the site; □ YES  □ NO    or

c) a citizen suit, contribution action or other third party claim against the current or immediate past owner, that would, if successful, require that party to assess, investigate, or clean up the site.  □ YES  □ NO;

Skip to “b.5” if the site was acquired through tax foreclosure, abandonment or equivalent government proceedings; if not, answer question b.3 and 5.4.

3.  The current owner is: _______________________ [fill in the blank] Has the current owner:

a) dispensed or disposed of petroleum or petroleum product at the site? 

□ YES  □ NO

b) owned the property during the dispensing or disposal of petroleum product at the site? □ YES  □ NO

e) exacerbated the contamination at the site? □ YES  □ NO

d) taken reasonable steps with regard to contamination at the site,

□ YES  □ NO. 

4.  The immediate past owner is: _______________________ [fill in the blank] Has the immediate past owner:

a) dispensed or disposed of petroleum or petroleum product at the site?  □ YES  □ NO

b) owned the property during the dispensing or disposal of petroleum product at the site? □ YES  □ NO

c) exacerbated the contamination at the site? □ YES  □ NO

d) taken reasonable steps with regard to contamination at the site,

□ YES  □ NO

5.  Based on the above, for purposes of Brownfield funding, is there a responsible party?  □ YES  □ NO   If “YES” go on to #6, if “NO” proceed directly to F.2.C.

6.  If there is a responsible party, is that party viable (has adequate financial resources to pay for assessment of the site). □ YES  □ NO  If “NO”, explain the basis for that conclusion:

If there is a viable responsible party, the petroleum site is ineligible. If there is no responsible party, or if there is a responsible party who is not viable, continue. NOTE: States may apply their own laws and regulations to make the petroleum site determination instead of the previous questions; if they do so, the grantee must submit their determination and rationale.

c. Whether the grantee is potentially liable for cleaning up the site.  Key questions for this determination follow:

1. Has the grantee ever:

a) dispensed or disposed of petroleum or petroleum product at the site, or owned the property during the dispensing or disposing of petroleum? 

□ YES  □ NO

b) exacerbated the contamination at the site? □ YES  □ NO

d.  Is the site subject to any order issued under Sec. 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act?  □ YES  □ NO

G.  ACCESS

Does grantee have access or an access agreement for this property?    □ YES  □ NO  

H.  SITE ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION BY EPA PROJECT OFFICER

Please Note:  If there are any questions on eligibility, OR if the grantee owns the site it wishes to work on, the P.O. should consult with the Regional Brownfield Coordinator, and as necessary EPA legal counsel.

Site □ is / □ is not eligible for site assessment activities using EPA Brownfield Funds

-- OR --

□ Site is eligible but requires an EPA Property-Specific Determination, for which additional information was provided.

________________________________________                _______________________

EPA Project Officer                                                                                                                Date:

I.  EPA NOTIFICATION TO APPLICANT OF SITE ELIGIBILITY

 Date Sent :                                               Copy of Notification Attached:    □ YES  □ NO

APPENDIX A:  [IF REQUIRED] INFORMATION TO SUPPORT PROPERTY SPECIFIC DETERMINATION by EPA

Grantee must explain why Brownfield financial assistance is needed and how it will protect human heath and the environment and either promote economic development or enable the creation of, preservation of, or addition to parks, greenways undeveloped property, other recreational property, or other property used for nonprofit purposes.    

Here's a link to the WORD version of this document - LINK

Two injured fighting fire at abandoned brownfield in Havelock, NC

Source: Sun Journal, D. Wilson

A small portion of the old Phoenix recycling site just outside Havelock caught fire on Wednesday afternoon, and two firefighters had to be treated for smoke inhalation.  Firefighters were called out again Thursday morning to extinguish smoldering hot spots. About a quarter acre of debris on the east side of the 34-acre abandoned dump burned, according to Larry Curtis, assistant chief of the Township 6 Volunteer Fire Department. He said though the fire was relatively small in size, it produced thick smoke. “It was nasty. I had two firefighters go down right off the bat on me,” said Curtis, who said the men were overcome by smoke and treated by Havelock EMS crews, then rejoined the firefighting effort. Lt. Chris Puylara was one who was overcome by smoke.
...
Havelock has taken the lead in applying for a Brownfield grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to assess and clean the site. The Havelock’s application was turned down last year, but the city has reapplied and may hear in April or May if its application is granted. The city hopes to one day make the site a park.

[MORE]

Old Fulton Bellows brownfield industrial site slated for redevelopment

Source: Metropulse, M. Gibson

Revamping the Strip

The Cumberland Avenue Corridor Project promises to redesign the Strip with fewer lanes and bigger sidewalks. Can it work? 

It seems inconceivable that you could take an oft-traveled four-lane road—known almost as much for the recklessness of its motorists during off-hours as for tedious back-ups during peak flow—add a huge shopping development and a slew of new housing at the mouth of its messiest juncture, narrow it to two lanes plus a middle turning lane and expect a happy result.
But Knoxville city planners say they’ve done their homework—and that not only will the Cumberland Avenue Corridor Project change traffic patterns for the better on the University of Tennessee’s perpetually harried Strip, but it will also give that aesthetically challenged area a makeover, providing a shot in the arm for local merchants.
“What we’re working toward is a safer and more economically viable Cumberland Avenue,” says Anne Wallace, the city’s project manager in the office of redevelopment. “Cumberland Avenue doesn’t function well in its current configuration. Traffic backs up; the pedestrian experience is unpleasant. And the aesthetic appeal is poor. There are lots of areas for improvement.”
The plan dovetails with—and is arguably complicated by—the more recent announcement of the University Commons Project, a 211,000 square-foot shopping center development slated for the old Fulton Bellows brownfield industrial site between Volunteer Boulevard and Alcoa Highway. University Commons will include a Walmart and a Publix grocery as well as additional retail and parking space; and bring an estimated 6,600 additional cars to the area’s traffic flow. Cumberland’s current daily traffic count is about 30,000.

[MORE]

Virdia looks for brownfield biofuel site in Mississippi

State’s $75M loan promise positions Virdia for biofuel site search

Wed, Mar 21, 2012

Source: MBJ, 

With the promise of a $75 million loan from the Mississippi Development Authority in hand, Redwood City, Calif.-based Virdia is ready to begin scouting for a site to convert the state’s soft pine into sugars for biofuel makers.  The one certainty about the plant’s location is that it will be near an ample supply of pine and must produce at least 150,000 tons of sugar to be commercially viable.  Virdia plans to open the plant in 2014. A second larger plant that is to follow would have a production capacity of 500,000 tons of sugar, the company says. An out-of-use pulp plant or brownfield site would suffice, as would co-locating with a power generating plant that is using bio-mass, the company says.

Virdia started life as HCL Clean Tech. The privately held startup company adopted the Virdia name in early March, a move that coincided with the naming of biofuels sector veteran Philipe Lavielle as CEO.
Lavielle, in a press statement accompanying his appointment, said Virdia is “much closer to realizing our mission on a large scale.” To secure the $75 million loan from the State of Mississippi, Virdia will have to satisfy state officials that it has adequate private capital backing. So far, it has raised $20 million from insiders and a handful of venture capital firms and closed on a $10 million venture deal with Triple Point Capital. Sally Williams, spokeswoman for the Mississippi Development Authority, said she is unsure whether the $30 million in private money is sufficient to satisfy the state’s loan terms. Virdia contemplates a $1 billion investment in Mississippi facilities, according to Williams. “I don’t know the time frame. I know we’re several years out.”
In full operation, Virdia expects to employ about 700 workers, Williams said.

[MORE]

Study: Metro Atlanta's poor, minorities live near worst pollution

SOURCE:  T Wheatley 

It's not a shocker but it's still depressing to see: According to a new report (PDF) by an environmental law firm and advocacy group, metro Atlanta's minorities, people living on low incomes, and families who speak a language other than English are more likely to live near and be affected by pollution than whites and those with higher incomes. And in contrast to the federal government, the state lags behind when it comes to addressing such environmental justice issues. Researchers with GreenLaw, an Atlanta-based environmental law firm, broke the 14-county metro region up into equal-sized square blocks and analyzed the overlap between demographics and types of pollution including brownfields, landfills, and facilities emitting pollutants, inside each. (If you're curious how your neighborhood stacks up with others, you're in luck.)
The team identified five of metro Atlanta's "environmental justice hotspots" — the worst of which is the area where Douglas, Fulton and Cobb counties converge near Fulton Industrial Boulevard and the Chattahoochee River.

[MORE]

Brownfields: Myth vs. Fact

--------

MYTH - Brownfields are all large, former industrial or manufacturing sites.
FACT - While some brownfields are large former industrial sites, the majority of the estimated 500,000 to 1 million brownfields in the United States are small properties like dry cleaners,vacant lots, or gas stations.

--------

MYTH - A site must actually be contaminated to be considered a brownfield.
FACT - The perception that a property may be contaminated can be just as great a barrier to redevelopment as actual contamination. Therefore, sites where contamination is merely perceived, and site conditions are unknown, are still considered brownfields. One third of the brownfield sites that have been assessed with EPA brownfields funding have turned out to be free from significant contamination.

--------

MYTH - Superfund sites are brownfields, or brownfields are Superfund sites.
FACT - Under the statutory definition, brownfields do not include Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL). A small number of Superfund sites, approximately 1,200, have been designated NPL sites and are managed under a more elaborate process than most brownfield sites.

-------

MYTH - Brownfields are only an urban problem.
FACT - Contaminated properties affect nearly every town, large and small. Small and rural communities are impacted not only by former industrial sites, but by closed gas stations, dry cleaners, old dumps, contaminated rail yards, mine-scarred lands, agricultural wastes such as pesticides, and many other challenges. Many EPA brownfield grants have been awarded to communities with less than 25,000 people.

------

MYTH - Brownfields are an environment-only issue, or an EPA only problem.
FACT - While brownfields by definition involve real or perceived environmental contamination, the solutions to brownfields problems almost always involve much broader issues including economic reuse, neighborhood improvement, infrastructure and transportation capacity, job creation, tax incentives, crime prevention, and many other approaches. Successful brownfield reuse generally occurs when economic and community development issues are addressed along with contamination concerns. The multidisciplinary nature of brownfields is one reason that more than 20 federal agencies, and a broad range of state, local, private and nonprofit entities, are now involved in brownfields revitalization.

-----

Source: National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals. Available at http://www.resourcesaver.com/file/toolmanager/Custom-O93C337F65023.pdf.

Evangelical Understanding of New Urbanism/Smart Growth

Grace and The City : Tim Keller - Watch more Videos at Vodpod.

ATSDR - RFPs for Community Health Projects - May/June 2012

ATSDR’s Brownfield/Land Reuse Community Health Initiative has exciting news!  They will be funding brownfield/land reuse community health projects this year.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) will be announcing the request for proposals for a cooperative agreement in Brownfield and/or land reuse community health projects and/or other health assessment projects in late May/early June 2012. These projects will have a particular emphasis on identifying health issues prior to redevelopment and/or assessing changes in community health associated with reuse plans and redevelopment.  Projects should include, but are not limited to:

·         Evaluation of health risk from environmental contaminant exposures at land reuse/ Brownfield sites

·         Identification of community health status indicators (pre- and post-development)

·         Development of  risk communication and/or health education programs related to environmental hazards associated with land reuse/ Brownfield sites or health status of the community

·         Development of inventories of current land reuse sites, including associated potential health risks of exposure to contaminants at these sites, former site uses, citizen complaints, accidental releases

·         Design of  programs to assist communities to reduce chronic disease status through implementation of new programs focused on land revitalization activities

·         Assessment of  residual contamination at land reuse/ Brownfield sites before, during, or after redevelopment

·         Creation of measurable, short-term intervention strategies focused on land reuse/ Brownfield sites

·         Utilization of geospatial analysis to characterize land reuse sites and associated health risks

It is expected that this program will stimulate collaboration among stakeholders, including local governing officials, community-based organizations, the private sector, and State governments to work together in a timely manner to ensure that public health is considered in the earliest phases of remediation and redevelopment of Brownfield/land reuse properties.

Average amount of award: $150K

Estimated due date:  July 30, 2012

Eligible applicants:

ATSDR’s request for limited completion is based on regulatory authority cited by the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986.  Section 104 (i)(15), 42 U.S.C. 9604 (i)(15).  The CERCLA limits the eligible applicants that can apply to the following:

a.       State Governments

b.      Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Federally Recognized)

c.       County Governments

d.      City or Township Governments

e.      Special District Governments

f.        Governments of U.S. Territories or Possessions

g.       Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Other than Federally Recognized)

At the time of submission the organizations must provide documentation proving they are Bona Fide Agent of federally recognized or state-recognized American Indian/Alaska Native tribal governments; state, county, and local governments, and their political subdivisions; or political subdivisions of States (in consultation with States).

 

For more information, contact:

Leann Bing

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

770-403-5068 (cell)

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/sites/brownfields/index.html

KBing@cdc.gov