Currently (it is my understanding and I may be wrong) HUD requires a Phase I ESA for “sites known or suspected to be contaminated by toxic chemicals or radioactive materials include but are not limited to sites: (i) listed on an EPA Superfund National Priorities or CERCLA List, or equivalent State list; (ii) located within 3,000 feet of a toxic or solid waste landfill site; or (iii) with an underground storage tank.”

Seems to me that there’s an opportunity for communities to expand the traditional scope of the 104(k) Assessment Grants to conduct Phase I and Phase II ESAs on HUD, USDA and EDA projects. From my experience, “Responsible Entities” using Federal HUD, USDA and EDA dollars have steered clear of sites that fail the three criteria above. This, in turn, translates into sprawl and bigger challenges with redeveloping brownfields. Most sites on the “equivalent State List” have manageable levels of contaminants that could be redeveloped but Responsible Entities steer clear because of the perceived and (in some cases) real hurdles compared to a clean piece of property. Like chlorinated solvents, Responsible Entities choose the path of least resistance when it comes to economic development.

EPA and its federal partners should consider identifying SPECIFIC Programs/requirements/tasks (like the HUD instance mentioned above) and then educating the HUD/USDA/EDA stakeholders of these potential opportunities.