BROWNFIELDS SUBCOMMITTEE
Broome County Environmental Management Council
Natural Resources Committee
5th Floor Planning Department Conference Room
Edwin L. Crawford County Office Building, Binghamton, NY
Present: Stacy Merola, Ken Kamlet (Chair), Frank Evangelisti, Chris Engler, Doug Garner, and Michael Clugston. Guests: Joe Moody (Town of Union), Bob Murphy (O’Connor, Gacioch), Susan Cummins (GeoLogic), David B. Farrington (Walter B. Satterthwaite Associates), Greg V. Lesniak (Satterthwaite), Mary Brophy (NYS DOT), Julie Voigtlaender (B.U.), Marlene Rumple (NYPIRG), Miri Silberstein (NYPIRG), and Linsey Hurst (NYPIRG). AWE: Paul Thompson, Joseph Graney, Cindy Westerman and Dee Golazeski (Village of Johnson City).
1. The meeting convened at 4:35 p.m. On a motion from Bob Murphy, seconded by Frank Evangelisti, the minutes from the last two meeting were approved as submitted. [EDITORS NOTE: According to EMC by-laws, a motion and second is needed from EMC members to formally approve minutes of previous meetings.]
2. New EMC Member-at-Large, Doug Garner (BAE Systems) and two guest representatives, David B. Farrington, P.G. and Greg V. Lesniak, P.G, of Walter B. Satterthwaite Associates, a West Chester, PA environmental consulting and engineering firm, were welcomed. Walter B. Satterthwaite, which is involved in the Union Forging site clean up, has just opened a satellite office in Endicott.
Member Items of Interest: (a) Julie Voigtlaender, Binghamton University student, shared the results of her New York Public Interest Research Group independent study project on brownfields. The product of her study was a map of “brownfield sites” in Broome County. The map included EPA Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites (red dots), EPA “No Further Remedial Action Planned” (NFRAP) sites (green dots), NYS DEC Voluntary Cleanup Program sites (yellow dots), DEC State Superfund sites (Inactive Hazardous Waste sites) (blue dots), and EPA “CERCLIS” sites (from EPA’s active database of potential Superfund sites) (no dots). The periphery of the map consisted of color photographs providing front views of most of the sites pinpointed on the map, with a string connecting each photograph to the corresponding dot on the map. The map will be donated to the EMC.
There was some discussion of the fact that, from the standpoint of the Subcommittee, the prime candidates for brownfield sites with significant redevelopment potential are: EPA CERCLIS and NFRAP sites, and EPA NPL sites and DEC Superfund sites for which cleanup has been, or is close to being completed. DEC Voluntary Cleanup Program sites are poor candidates in most instances because, by definition, they involve active cleanup volunteers who already have an intended use for a site. They are, thus, typically not “available” for a new use promoted an individual or municipality. At the other extreme, active EPA and DEC Superfund sites are poor candidates for near-term redevelopment because of the extent of contamination present, unless and until cleanup action has been completed or is close to completion.
Julie was thanked for an informative and helpful presentation.
(b) USDOT Funding of Brownfields Redevelopment: Copies of a new U.S. DOT report, Redeveloping Brownfields with Federal Transportation Funds (Feb. 2001) were distributed. The report indicates that transportation agencies may spend federal transportation funds on the assessment and cleanup of brownfield sites, provided that the activity is part of an “eligible transportation project” and makes “transportation sense.” For example, a State DOT may use federal highway dollars to fund ramps, roads, bikeways, and walkways that connect a brownfield to an existing road. Transit agencies may also enhance their services near residential and employment centers located on former brownfields by building bus or rail stops, and erecting signs and streetlights. (Additional information is contained in the Subcommittee’s list of Funding Sources, as updated 3/30/01.) Copies of the report are available online at: http://www.smartgrowth.org/library/brownfield_tea21.html.
(c) There was also brief discussion of the National Park Service’s Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) Program, which provides grants of up to $500,000 to local governments to upgrade urban parks and recreation areas (See Funding Sources list (3/30/01) for summary). Stacy reported that the City of Binghamton is actively pursuing funding under this program.
(d) The Chairman reported that EPA representatives had indicated that a decision would be announced shortly on awardees of the Brownfield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund grant for which Broome County has applied. [EDITORS NOTE: Broome County Planning received a letter from EPA Region 2, dated April 20, indicating that Broome County was not among the awardees. The Essex County Improvement Authority, NJ was the only one to receive a CRLF award in EPA Region 2]. EPA representatives, according to Ken, are perplexed that Broome County has not pursued a Brownfields Pilot Program grant. The next application deadline will probably be in October. The Chairman will inquire about EPA Region 2 representative’s willingness to address the Subcommittee and to provide us helpful hints on maximizing our prospects for receiving future EPA brownfield grants.
(e) Stacy provided a copy of a HUD Fact Sheet (“FY 2001 Supernofa: Economic Development and Empowerment Programs”), indicating upcoming deadlines for relevant HUD grants, including the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) program for which the deadline is May 22, 2001, and Economic Development Program Initiative (EDI), for which the deadline is July 6, 2001.
(f) Subcommittee intern: Our current intern, Michael Clugston, is done with classes in early May. His service as an intern will effectively end on or about May 8th. The Subcommittee is very appreciative of his efforts in our behalf. Michael was urged to consider assisting us as a paid intern over the Summer, and Julie was encouraged to consider the possibility of assisting the Subcommittee in the Fall. The Chairman encouraged EMC staff to explore the identification of other possible intern candidates for the Summer and Fall.
3. NYSDEC Update: Tom Suozzo was not able to be present, but had provided some of the materials that he had planned to refer to in his presentation (which will be deferred to the next meeting).
(a) DEC Press Release on Superfund Reform Legislation (April 16, 2001): The release notes that the State Superfund “ran out of money” on March 31, 2001 and that, without comprehensive financing and reform of the State program “nearly 800 sites across the state will not have adequate funding for site investigation and cleanups.” Under the Governor’s proposal, the State’s share of cleanup costs for brownfield redevelopment would be increased from 75 percent to 90 percent and provide tax credits to private developers for remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites. The Governor’s plan would also create a new Brownfield Redevelopment Area Grants Program “to help local governments and organizations develop comprehensive plans for identifying and addressing brownfields in their communities.” It also “includes liability reform for innocent landowners, lending institutions, municipalities, fiduciaries and industrial development agencies, eliminating one of the major roadblocks in efforts to clean up and revitalize brownfields.” Among other notable (and potentially problematic) provisions of the bill are (i) the proposed expansion of sites eligible for cleanup to encompass hazardous substance sites, “which are contaminated with byproducts of obsolete manufacturing products” (adoption of this provision would add as many as 274 sites, which the state currently lacks authority to remediate under existing Superfund law); and (ii) establishment of the same “cleanup objective” for the State Superfund Program, the Voluntary Cleanup Program, and long-term remediations under the Oil Spill Program. Members felt that if this means that cleanup standards will be toughened for non-Superfund brownfield sites, it will probably discourage owners and prospective redevelopers from pursuing brownfield cleanups under DEC auspices.
(b) Northeast Midwest Institute Paper (“Lessons from the Field: Unlocking Economic Potential with an Environmental Key,” March 15, 2001). The paper provides 21 case studies of brownfields-related property transactions that have led to economic redevelopment: (i) those that are purchaser driven, where the purchaser redevelops the property with strong State and local assistance - 6 cases of city-coordinated transfer of privately owned land and 4 cases of city-coordinated transfer of city-owned land; (ii) those that are public sector driven, where a local or state government redevelops privately-owned brownfields (5 cases); and (iii) those that are private-sector driven, where a private entity redevelops a privately owned brownfield - 2 cases where a city played a key role and 4 cases where a city played a minor role.
The Chairman explained that the Northeast Midwest Institute is a Congressionally-sponsored “think tank” the Board of Directors of which are Members of Congress from Northeastern and Midwesternstates. Because of its geographic base, brownfields have been a major focus of the Institute. Many useful brownfields studies and reports can be down-loaded from the Institute’s website: http://www.nemw.org.
Union Forging Site, Endicott, NY: At the Chairman’s request, Dave Farrington made a brief presentation about this site, based on his firm’s work as a consultant to the owner, UIS. The site is 6-acres, vacant, in the boundaries of the Empire Zone, and will be put on the “productive use list” shortly. A final report to the DEC is forthcoming, which will recommend a groundwater remediation system. The site is being actively marketed for industrial or commercial use.
4. Database Update: Things have been proceeding slowly. The City of Binghamton is the only local jurisdiction for which Broome County does not have direct, centralized access to tax map data and GIS information. Michael has been able to gather address and tax map info, but approximately 15-20 sites can be researched in one sitting.
5. Review of Candidate Site List for Binghamton: The preliminary site list for Binghamton started out with 21 sites. One site (#5) was dropped from this list (the former Chenango Industrial Site at 312 Maple Street) because it is located in Endicott rather than Binghamton. Two other sites (#14 - Hansmann’s Mills, #69 – Armory Site) were previously dropped from the Candidate List. Five additional sites were dropped from the list for various reasons: #8 (93 Main St., former McMahon Pesticides) because it is only 0.8-acre in size, is on the State Superfund Registry, and is contaminated with a significant quantity of herbicides and pesticides; #16 (Canny Trucking) because it is currently used by Sunstream for storage, is located in a Residential zoning district, and is not part of the Empire Zone(EZ); #22 (American Cleaners) because it is only 0.1-acre and is in a Residential Zoning District; #65 (Washington Street Coal Tar Site) because it is a relatively small site and is probably not available for redevelopment; and #75 (Dunn McCarthy/Gotham Shoe Site) because it is relatively small and is currently being redeveloped.
Of the remaining 13 sites on the Binghamton list, ##76 (Crane Building) and 66 (Vail Ballou Printing) were consolidated because they are the same 4-acre site. Also, of the three GAF Sites listed (#17-GAF Corp., #18-GAF Dump, and #46-GAF Dump), at least two are duplicates. It was not clear, however, whether the former GAF offices and the area classified as a former dumpsite are co-located at the same site.
After discussion of each of the remaining 11 sites, it was decided to retain each of them on the candidate list, at least for the time being. Among the pertinent insights gained concerning these sites were the following:
#6 (Manufactured Gas Plant, 279 Court St.) – DOT has a project right near this ~3+-acre Industrial site (possibility of DOT funding?).
#7 (Noyse Island Site) – 4.92 acres, but adjacent to a strip of undeveloped land; on the State Superfund Registry, but is the subject of a DEC-approved cleanup plan. NYSEG may not wish to give up ownership for liability reasons.
#11 (Anitec / Brandenburg Site) – This 33-acre Industrial site, in the EZ, which has been fully remediated, had its buildings demolished, has fair highway access, and s clearly one of the primary candidates for redevelopment in Broome County. There was some sentiment that it should not be included on a “brownfields” list because it is no longer contaminated. However, since the definition of “brownfields” encompasses both actual and “perceived” contamination, it was decided to keep it on the list, at least for now. If, at a later time, retention on the list is believed by the owner to stigmatize the site and to impede rather than promote redevelopment of the site, dropping it from the list may be appropriate.
##17, 18, 46 (GAF Site[s]/Dump) – 2.7-acre Industrial site(s) owned by GAF. Because subcommittee members had little additional information on site details, it was determined to keep it/them on the List pending further investigation.
#28 (Systems Manufacturing) – A 4-acre Industrial site with good highway access. Its availability is unclear. DEC and DOH should be consulted in terms of its contamination factor, if any.
##66, 76 (Vail Ballou Printing Plant/Crane Building) – 4.46-acre Industrial site, which abuts the Apex Warehouse (#67), is located in the EZ, and is known to be available.
#67 (Apex Warehouse) – A 1.5-acre Industrial site, adjacent to the EZ (and the Crane Building (#76), and known to be available.
#72 (Stow Manufacturing) – An 11-acre Industrial site which adjoins a potentially available DOT facility. It has good highway access, it’s in the EZ, and it’s available. Another prime brownfield site. Environmental contamination is extensive, but probably manageable.
#73 (Phillips Foundry) – A ~6-acre Industrial site, in the EZ, located across the street from site #72. It is on the market.
#77 (Railroad Roundhouse) – A 6-acre Industrial site owned by CP Rail. It may or may not be in the EZ. It adjoins the Unisource property. While it is available for redevelopment, the owner is reportedly only interested in selling to a business that will receive and/or ship goods by rail.
6. Miscellaneous Topics: Worthy topics of discussion for future meetings include to discuss how brownfields-related information could and should be factored into a community’s evolving Comprehensive Plan (City of Binghamton and the Town of Vestal). Stacy noted that another EMC intern has been gathering information on potential sources of contamination, which also includes some best management practices for certain industrial, commercial, residential and agricultural actions, and info related to the specific sources of these contaminants, locally. This info might be helpful to the efforts of this Subcommittee. The Chairman noted that U.S. EPA, in 1997, developed some tools precisely of this sort (more such info has probably been developed since then), including: Tool Kit of Information Resources for Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup (EPA 542-B-97-001, Jan. 1997 Draft); and Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup (EPA 542-B-97-002, Jan. 1997 Draft).
Future Guest Speakers: Tom Suozzo will brief us at our next meeting on new DEC and State brownfield initiatives. The Chairman was also going to try to line up some speakers from the EPA Region 2 Brownfields office to address us potentially at our meeting in June. If feasible, this meeting will be arranged for 4:00 pm.
7. Next Meeting: The next regular meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 16th at 4:30 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m.
Recorder, Ken Kamlet
4/24/01
Editor, Stacy Merola