Search

The brownfield project will be branded as an IHCL SeleQtions hotel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The hotel is a Brownfield project [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The hotel is a brownfield project [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The brownfield project is slated to open by 2025 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The brownfield project is slated to open by 2025 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This brownfield resort is slated to open in early 2023 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a report card on the condition of hazardous waste in the U.S. It informs that more than 150 cities had successfully redeveloped 1,578 brownfield sites, returning more than 10,000 acres to economic productivity in 2007, but the process is slowing. It suggests to create Brownfields Redevelopment Action Grant program to provide investment funds. The report places the work related to hazardous waste in grade D, representing a poor condition.

The federal role in assisting states and communities to clean up brownfield sites -- real property affected by the potential presence of environmental contamination -- has been an ongoing issue for more than a decade. With the enactment of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (P.L. 107-118) in 2002, Congress provided specific authority for EPA to address brownfield sites. In contrast to Superfund sites, environmental contamination present at brownfield sites is typically less of a risk to human health. With the primary motivation to aid cleanup efforts, the 2002 statute, among other things, authorized two grant programs: (1) a competitive grant program to address specific sites; and (2) a non-competitive grant program to support state cleanup programs. While there appears to be broad consensus that a federal role in the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields is desirable, issues regarding the degree of financial assistance and overall program effectiveness have been raised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Brownfields Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to award grants for the assessment and cleanup of sites that pose a less serious threat to human health and the environment than sites addressed by the Superfund program. The authorization expired on September 30, 2006. In the 109th Congress, a reauthorization bill, H.R. 5810, was reported from the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on July 28, 2006 (H.Rept. 109-608, Part 1), but went no further. The bill would have renewed the authorization through FY2012 at the current level of $200 million annually. It also would have reauthorized provisions that provide financial assistance for state and tribal cleanup programs at the current level of $50 million per year (for a total authorization of $250 million). Appropriations in the last four years have been between $165 million and $171 million. The Department of Housing and Urban Development also has a small Brownfields Program, and approximately 20 other agencies have programs or activities that foster cleanup and development. Because reauthorization was not enacted in the 109th Congress, it is likely to be an issue for the 110th. For more background information on the origins and development of the Brownfields Program, see CRS Report RL30972, The Brownfields Program Authorization: Cleanup of Contaminated Sites, and CRS Report 97-731, Superfund and the Brownfields Issue, both by Mark Reisch. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On January 11, 2002, the President signed H.R. 2869 (P.L. 107-118), which formally established EPA's brownfields program, and provided relief from Superfund liability for small businesses. The Act creates a $200 million per year brownfield cleanup program (including $50 million for cleanup of petroleum-contaminated sites); provides $50 million for state programs; and relieves liability for contiguous property owners, prospective purchasers, and innocent landowners. It also provides liability relief for small businesses and others who disposed of small amounts of hazardous waste, and allows businesses to make a financial settlement for a lesser amount in cases of financial hardship. The Senate passed S. 606 on November 20, 2002 to establish an Ombudsman. The House passed H.R. 2941 under suspension on June 4, 2002, a bill to make HUD brownfield grants more accessible, especially to smaller communities. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported S. 1079 on April 25, providing funds for the Economic Development Administration's brownfield program. The Superfund Act's formal name is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA (P.L. 96-510, as amended). It is the principal federal program for cleaning up hazardous waste sites. As of December 2002, 809 nonfederal sites (61%) placed on the Superfund's National Priorities List (NPL) had been removed to the Construction Completed List. Program critics say it is slow, ineffective, and expensive. Program supporters acknowledge that the statute needs to be updated, but argue that Superfund cleanups have prevented widespread health and environmental exposures and have created strong incentives for more careful hazardous waste management. Future funding of the program is a basic issue, as the taxing authority that supported the Superfund trust fund ended in 1995. Congress has appropriated larger amounts from the Treasury since FY1999 as the trust fund balance has declined. The FY2002 appropriation for the Superfund program is $1.27 billion, (P.L. 106-377). CERCLA's broad liability scheme has been one of the most difficult issues. The average cost of cleaning up a site is about $20 million, a large enough amount to often make it worthwhile for parties to pursue legal means to spread the costs rather than to settle. So at large sites, where it is not unusual for there to be over a hundred potentially responsible parties, there can be a commensurate amount of expensive negotiation and litigation. Such situations can be especially burdensome for small businesses and other minor parties. The law's cleanup standards and remedy selection procedures are also controversial. Requirements for treatment, permanence, and the application of both federal and state regulations have led to what some critics characterize as overly strict risk assessment, and increased costs and delay at many sites. Environmental groups, on the other hand, strongly support cleanup remedies that minimize remaining on-site pollution rather than remedies that, while designed to limit human and environmental exposure, leave wastes on site. Business interests also want to cap the amount of natural resource damages that can be assessed against them. A number of states are seeking a full delegation to them of the authorities in CERCLA, including remedy selection, control over CERCLA's monies, and the determination of what sites go on and off the NPL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The parks will be set up at greenfield/brownfield sites located in different willing states [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The capital cost of this brownfield expansion would be approximately Rs 25 crore [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Congress has before it numerous bills to expand the Environmental Protection AgencyUs (EPA) brownfields program to help communities restore less seriously contaminated sites that have the potential for economic development. EPA defines brownfields as abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. A combination of potential environmental, economic and social benefits gives this program broad support among governments, environmentalists, developers, and communities. The brownfields program was established administratively by EPA under the aegis of the Superfund program; without explicit authority for it in the law, it has been financed by the Superfund appropriation. The program has expanded to include 363 brownfields assessment grants (most for $200,000 over 2 years); 106 $350,000 revolving loan fund grants to help finance the actual cleanups; 47 job training grants; and 28 Brownfields Showcase Communities where technical and financial assistance from 20 participating federal agencies is being coordinated with state, local and non-governmental efforts. FY1997 was the first year brownfields became a separate budgetary line item, at $37.7 million. For FY2000 the appropriation was $91.7 million. In the FY2001 budget, the Administration requested and was appropriated $91.6 million. The 106th Congress extended the brownfields cleanup tax incentive to December 31, 2003, and expanded it to make all brownfields certified by a state environmental agency eligible for the tax break. Other brownfield bills introduced in the 106 th Congress appeared to confirm the general direction EPA has taken. Two Superfund reauthorization bills were reported in the House, each of which contained a title on brownfields. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reported H.R. 1300 on September 30, 1999 (H.Rept. 106-353, Part I), and the Commerce Committee ordered H.R. 2580 reported on October 13, 1999 (H.Rept. 106-775, part I). Negotiations on S. 1090 in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee did not produce an acceptable bipartisan compromise and the committee agreed to end their deliberations on August 4, 1999. This report provides the history, background, and operations of the brownfields program and briefly reviews its current status. For regularly updated information on legislative activity, see CRS Issue Brief IB10011, Superfund Reauthorization Issues in the 106 th Congress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Superfund reauthorization bill, H.R. 1300, was ordered reported by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on August 5, 1999, and now goes to the Commerce Committee, which shares jurisdiction. Title I authorizes programs to assess and clean up brownfields, provides funding for state voluntary cleanup programs, and prohibits federal enforcement at sites cleaned up under state law. Community participation in decision-making is promoted by Title II, and the duties of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry are re-focused. Title III relieves a variety of innocent parties of Superfund liability, and reduces, limits, or eliminates the liability for small businesses, municipalities, municipal solid waste, sewage sludge, and recyclers; it also creates a process for determining the cost shares of parties at Superfund sites. Title IV adds some flexibility to remedy selection rules, and adopts several of EPA's administrative reforms. In Title V the role of Indian tribes is enlarged, the state cost share of operation and maintenance is reduced, and states are given final authority at federal facility cleanups not on the National Priority List. Title VI provides program authorization for 8 years: at $1.5 billion annually for 4 years, then gradually declining to $975 million. Title VII recommends reinstating the Superfund taxes. (For more on Superfund reauthorization, see CRS Issue Brief IB1OO11, Superfund Reauthorization Issues in the 106th Congress.) This report will be updated as events warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Legal immigration to the United States has increased sharply in recent years, and shows no signs of slowing down. The question of why immigration has grown so rapidly and the implications of this growth for the future are expected to be issues in the 105th Congress. Primarily because of legislation enacted in 1980 and 1986, the numerical restrictions of the basic family and employment-based immigration preference system became less significant. The growth in legal immigration during the past 15 years came in three groups admitted outside these numerical limits -- legalized aliens, refugees, and numerically exempt immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. For example, about 2.8 million illegal or undocumented aliens were "legalized" between 1981 and 1995. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the third Congress in a row, there was a major effort to reauthorize Superfund. Chairmen of the three committees of jurisdiction introduced comprehensive reauthorization bills -- S. 8, H.R. 2727, and H.R. 3000; hearings were held on all three, S. 8 was ordered reported, and H.R. 2727 was approved by subcommittee. None of these bills was enacted. The law's title is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, P.L. 96-510). As of September 1998, 18 years after the law's enactment, 535 sites (39%) placed on the Superfund's National Priorities List (NPL) had been removed to the Construction Completed List. The program has been accused of being slow, ineffective, and expensive. Many feel its liability system is unfair; the lack of agreement on new liability provisions has impeded congressional action. CERCLA's broad liability scheme has been the most difficult reauthorization issue. The average cost of cleanup is about $30 million, a large enough amount to make it worthwhile for parties to pursue legal means to spread the costs rather than to settle. So at large sites, where it is not unusual for there to be over a hundred potentially responsible parties, there can be a commensurate amount of expensive negotiation and litigation. This has been especially burdensome on small businesses and other minor parties. The law's cleanup standards and remedy selection procedures are also controversial. Requirements for treatment, permanence, and the application of both federal and state regulations have led to what some critics characterize as overly strict risk assessment, and increased costs and delay at many sites. Business interests want to limit the scope of natural resource damages that can be assessed against them by putting a cap on the amount of such awards. A number of states want to have full delegation of the authorities in CERCLA, including remedy selection, control over CERCLA's monies, and the determination of what sites go on and off the NPL. The popular brownfields program, aimed at low-level contaminated sites with economic development potential, received increased funding for FY1998 and FY1999. Also state voluntary cleanup programs are popular. EPA's FY1999 budget request (H.R. 4194), including $1.5 billion for Superfund, was signed by the President on October 21, 1998. The Superfund FY1998 appropriation was also $1.5 billion (P.L. 105-65). The authority to collect the taxes that support the trust fund ended in 1995; a General Accounting Office study said the outlook for the Superfund Trust Fund after FY 1999 is uncertain. In Superfund actions in the 105th Congress, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-34) included a $417 million tax break for cleaning up brownfields, permitting same-year deduction of cleanup costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reauthorizing the Superfund hazardous waste cleanup law is a top environmental priority in the 105th Congress, according to congressional leaders and the subcommittees with jurisdiction. The program has been accused of being slow, ineffective, and too expensive. Many feel its liability system is unfair. And the taxes that feed the Superfund trust fund expired on December 31, 1995. The law's title is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, P.L. 96-510). Major revisions were made by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA, P.L. 99-499). The Superfund FY1997 appropriation is $1.394 billion. The authority to collect the taxes that support the trust fund ended in 1995; the Congressional Budget Office says there is enough in the trust fund to last through FY2000. As of December 1996, 16 years after the law's enactment, 412 sites (31%) placed on the Superfund's National Priorities List (NPL) had been removed to the Construction Completed List. CERCLA's broad liability scheme has been the most difficult reauthorization issue. The average cost of cleanup is about $30 million, a large enough amount to make it worthwhile for parties to pursue legal means to spread the costs rather than to settle. So at large sites, where it is not unusual for there to be over a hundred potentially responsible parties, there can be a commensurate amount of expensive negotiation and litigation. This has been especially burdensome on small businesses and other minor parties. The law's cleanup standards and reme-dy selection procedures are also controversial. Requirements for treatment, permanence, and the application of both federal and state regulations have led to what some critics characterize as overly strict risk assessment, and increased costs and delay at many sites. Business interests want to limit the scope of natural resource damages that can be assessed against them by putting a cap on the amount of such awards, and by only recognizing economic losses. A number of states want to have full delegation of the authorities in CERCLA, including remedy selection, control over CERCLA's monies, and the determination of what sites go on and off the NPL. The popular brownfields program is likely to receive additional assistance, as are state voluntary cleanup programs. Senate Superfund subcommittee chairman Bob Smith on January 21, 1997, introduced S. 8, a comprehensive reauthorization bill. The Clinton Administration's position on the need for Superfund reauthorization appears to be in a state of flux. In December, EPA and Justice Department enforcement officials said the program now runs well and few amendments are needed, contrary to earlier statements by the President and Vice President. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]