User:IUrangerb/Sandbox

At level 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

At level 3

Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in

At level 4

voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

• Adding bullets
  • Second bullet
    • Third bullet
      • Don't skip lines between them

1. Adding numbers
2. Second
3. Third
4. Fourth
   1. Double pound sign for outline form

BOLD

Italics

Internal Link - link within wikipedia Big Sleazy

External Link - link from without Google Maps

Add a table

Column I	Column II	Column III
A	B	C
Apple	Orange	Pear
Mustard	Mayonnaise	Ketchup

==Regulation==

Federal and state legislation pertinent to U.S. Brownfield policy is numerous and diverse. The most important include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Superfund [1], and the Small Business Liability and Brownfields Revitalization Act [2].

Federal Level

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRA was passed in 1976 and is the federal government’s approach to the regulation of hazardous waste under a “cradle to the grave” scheme. It is important to Brownfields because at birth, RCRA applied only to active hazardous waste sites. It included no remedial or retroactive measures for regulating hazardous releases occurring before its passage. This deficiency helped lead to the passage of the Superfund legislation in 1980.

Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

The Community Reinvestment Act CRA was passed in 1977. Legislative intent behind the CRA was to incentivize the redevelopment of Brownfield properties. The Act was intended to force lenders to provide capital to the low and middle-income borrowers who lived proximally to Brownfield properties. The idea was that urban inhabitants would borrow money and invest in their neighborhoods, the development of which would require the remediation of the local Brownfields. However instead of investing in urban neighborhoods, many borrowers took the easy money and instead invested in “Greenfields,” or suburban and rural properties with fewer developmental risks. Essentially, an unintended side effect of the Act was the perpetuation of urban sprawl.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or Superfund

Superfund was passed in 1980 and among other things, granted EPA the authority to regulate cleanup of Superfund and Brownfield sites. Importantly, CERCLA does not preempt state clean-up laws and when passed, it did not distinguish between small and large generators of hazardous waste. In order to remediate a site, a party must comply with both state and EPA guidelines. There is no guarantee that compliance with state requirements will prevent further EPA regulation in the future. This complex liability scheme is a major disincentive faced by developers who under other circumstances, might be inclined to invest in remediating Brownfields.

Small Business Liability and Brownfields Revitalization Act

The Small Business Liability and Brownfields Revitalization Act was passed in 2002 and amended CERCLA to limit the liability faced by developers, especially small developers. It lists a number of exceptions to Superfund liability, but only applies to Brownfield sites.

Exemptions from Superfund liability

• Bona Fide Prospective Purchasers – A release from liability of prospective purchasers even if they knew about the existence of contamination, but all contamination took place prior to purchase.
• Contiguous Landowner Defense - If a landowner’s property happens to abut a Brownfield site and they can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they were not aware of any release of hazardous material, and did not consent to its release, then they qualify for an exemption.
• Innocent Landowner Defense – If for instance, a landowner happened to lease their property to a polluter, and they can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they were not aware of any release of hazardous material, and did not consent to its release, then they qualify for an exemption.

Windfall Profit Lien Provision

If EPA incurs costs in cleaning up a site, and that site is subsequently sold for a profit, this exception allows EPA to impose a lien on the profits of the sale to recoup their costs of remediation.

De Micromis Exemption

Attempt by the Act to distinguish between small and large generators of waste. It defines a small generator of waste according to a series of limits, that if met qualify the generator for exemption. These limits are:

• Contribution of less than 100 gallons of liquid waste
• Contribution of less than 200 pounds of solid waste
• Employment of less than 100 people

Increase of Funds for Redevelopment of Brownfield Sites

Increased the amount of federal funds available for Brownfield redevelopment from $98 million to $200 million. Expired in 2006.

Federal Enforcement Deferral

An assurance by EPA that if state cleanup regulations are followed, that it will not require further remediation activities in the future. However, EPA reserves the right to require further cleanup if contamination crosses state lines, if new information on a site comes to light, or if it judges that a release presents an imminent and substantial danger.

State Level

As a general rule, state regulatory schemes generally resemble CERCLA in structure, though suffice to say, there is not one cut and dry approach to Brownfield regulation used by all states. Most important is the fact that CERCLA does not preempt state regulation. In an attempt to limit developer liability, states have come up with various methods to try and limit the risk of EPA requiring cleanup on top of what they require themselves. A Voluntary Cleanup Plan (VCP) is an agreement between a developer and a state that once a site as been remediated according to state regulations, that the state will not require cleanup in the future. The EPA uses a similar tool called a State Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA), which is an agreement between a developer and the EPA that EPA will not take future remediation action once compliance with the state VCP has been achieved.