Notes from the meeting held on Tuesday, January 23, 2001

5^th Floor Planning Department Conference Room

Edwin L. Crawford County Office Building, Binghamton, NY

Present: Stacy Merola, Tom Evans, Frank Evangelisti, Ron Brink, Ken Kamlet (Chair), Chip McElwee, Joe Graney, Paul Thompson. Guest Experts: Bob Murphy (O’Connor, Gacioch), Joe Moody (Binghamton Local Development Corp.), Paul Nelson (Town of Union), Daria Golazeski (Village of Johnson City and Interim Chair, Empire Zone Administrative Board), Mary Brophy (NYS DOT).

Absent w/ excuse: Cindy Westerman and Chris Engler

1. The meeting convened at 4:38 p.m.

2. Approval of Minutes: The minutes of January 10th were approved as drafted.

3. Results of Inquiries: The Chairman reported on the results of two inquiries raised at the last meeting. First, the U.S. EPA RCRA-Superfund Hotline in Washington, D.C. confirmed that there is no procedure for completely delisting CERCLIS sites from the database. [CERCLIS stands for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System, which is the official repository for site and non-site specific EPA Superfund data in support of the CERCL Act.] Instead, CERCLIS sites which are viewed as posing no threat worthy of Federal attention are archived as part of a separately retrievable category of NFRAP (No Further Remedial Action Planned) sites. Second, Mark Gregor of the City of Rochester cannot make it to our meeting in February. However, personal business may bring him to Binghamton in March. He will let us know when he plans to make that trip, so we can hopefully line him up as a guest speaker at our March meeting (which will be scheduled at our February meeting).

4. New Guidance from DEC on Voluntary Cleanup Agreements: An article (“Summary of New York State Voluntary Cleanup Agreements,” by Larry Schnapf, NYS Bar Association The New York Environmental Lawyer, Fall 2000, Vol. 20, No. 3) summarizing proposed administrative changes to the state Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) was passed out and discussed. Stacy reported that, based on a presentation by Dale Desnoyers (Chief of DEC’s Bureau of State Superfund & Voluntary Cleanup) at a recent statewide meeting of EMC representatives, the indicated changes have not yet been implemented. (Bob Murphy will also check status with Mr. Schnapf, the author of the article.)

The new guidelines will, reportedly, be published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin prior to becoming effective. One of DEC’s objectives is said to be to limit transaction costs (including time of DEC staff) spent in negotiating tailored provisions within a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement. The new guidance will specify standard language with some blanks to be filled in for future agreements. Bob Murphy pointed out that “reopeners” (changed circumstances that cause DEC to come back and require additional measures to be implemented by the Volunteer even after the agreed-upon work plan had been fully carried out) do not appear to be addressed in the new draft. He noted that reopeners tend to “keep people suspicious” and operate as a deterrent to greater participation in the VCP. Bob pointed out that, in New Jersey, if something unexpected arises, the state DEP does not impose the burden on the cleanup volunteer, but addresses them itself. Bob also noted that, as the NYSDEC VCP is evolving, a lot of the potential benefits of brownfield programs are being lost because DEC is increasingly insisting on a full Superfund-type (NYS) cleanup before granting a liability release and covenant not to sue.

5. Discussion of Candidate Sites: The subcommittee continued its discussion of candidate sites, focusing on an updated (Jan. 15) draft, which had been circulated prior to the meeting. Joe Graney commented that, as the subcommittee zeroes in on priority candidates for redevelopment, other brownfield sites evaluated by the group and dropped from the list should not simply be discarded. There was general consensus that a database should be maintained of sites removed from the list.

Stacy reported that Ron Brink had provided her an annotated listing of sites from BCHD’s “Dumpsite Database.” The marked sites are no longer being used as active dumpsites and may be redevelopment candidates. These sites will be provisionally added to the candidate list for discussion at future meetings.

The question was asked whether Binghamton Plaza, which is a former City of Binghamton dumpsite, should be added to the list. The consensus was that it should not be—because of its active use as a shopping center—at least in the absence of any information that it is on the market or is being considered for redevelopment. (This distinction may make it appropriate to keep Endicott Plaza on the list.)

Information regarding the Kwik Fill Site in Johnson City was updated to correct the spelling of the name, and to note that a prior petroleum spill incident had been “closed” by DEC. This site also stimulated some discussion about whether we wanted to include a potentially large number of small former gas stations on the candidate list, which would appear to have limited redevelopment potential. (Susan Cummins also questioned in an e-mail communication whether this site should be listed because it is occupied.) The Chairman commented that it was unlikely that sites of this type and size would survive subsequent screening, but that it was appropriate to include sites of particular interest to subcommittee members on the candidate list because of the useful discussions generated, which would be reflected in the database of removed sites. It was also noted that one of the subcommittee’s tasks, in addition to identifying priority sites for redevelopment, is to provide guidance to local jurisdictions on what to watch out for before foreclosing on and taking over ownership of potentially contaminated properties. In a related vein, some of the sites proposed for addition to the list by Ron Brink were suggested, not necessarily because of a significant redevelopment potential, but because of unresolved potential environmental problems.

Bob Murphy suggested that an important consideration in developing the ultimate list of priority sites is job creation potential of the site.

With respect to the Chenango Bridge Nursing Home site, one member commented that the building has now been removed from the site. Other members noted that the site is at least 4 acres in size and is served by public water and sewer. (Bob Murphy commented that this site might be able to “help itself” and would not really need to be given a boost by being listed on our candidate site list.) It was also noted that the site’s remote hillside location probably made it suitable only for residential or institutional uses. There was a discussion of whether we should confine ourselves to listing sites with commercial or industrial redevelopment potential. It was suggested that we not so limit ourselves. However, it was pointed out that most of the theoretical benefits of brownfields redevelopment accrue to non-residential uses—because under a risk-based cleanup approach, high-risk residential uses would necessitate the most extensive cleanups. The Chairman noted that DEC seems to be requiring full cleanups, thus obliterating much of the benefit of risk-based cleanups anyway (at least in cases where DEC sign-offs are necessary or desirable). It is likely that sites with expected residential end-uses will not end up ranking very highly on our Candidate List because they do not generate jobs or tax base to nearly the extent of commercial and industrial properties.

DOD Depot Hillcrest (#34): Is undergoing site assessment. It has been proposed that the cleanup and any redevelopment will be performed to residential standards (i.e., a higher degree of cleanup than for commercial or industrial development).

TNT Red Star (add as #36): This Kirkwood site is about 2 acres in size and is located in the industrial park. Because of its location, it may be a good candidate for redevelopment. The trucking terminal that once occupied this site is now “largely gone.” DEC has classified this site as “Class 2” on the State Registry, meaning that it poses a “significant threat” (rather than an immediate one). Contamination exists at this site in shallow groundwater as a result of a spill 10 years ago. Since that time, contamination has not moved significantly. DEC has proposed a cleanup plan that will mitigate any potential threats posed by the site and ensure the protection of both the environment and the public water supply.

An e-mail from Susan Cummins (1/23/01) provided additional comments on the following candidate sites: Kwik Fill (#23), Dumac (#26), Systems Manufacturing (#28), and Rivco (#30). These, and the other changes described above, have been incorporated into an updated (1/25/01) tabulation of candidate sites.

MEMBERS ARE AGAIN URGED TO REVIEW THE EXISTING TABULATION PRIOR TO THE NEXT MEETING – ESPECIALLY TO ASSESS THE ACCURACY OF RECENTLY ADDED INFORMATION (SHOWN IN ITALICS). New sites and additional information are also welcome.

6. Information Management: The Chairman explained that it was his plan that we utilize Subcommittee expertise to flesh out the Candidate List and fill in as many blanks as possible. Once that is done, we will apply screening factors to pare down the list. Our intern will then be asked to intensively research the remaining sites to fill in missing data, including tax map numbers necessary—as pointed out by Frank Evangelisti--to locate each site on the County’s Geographic Information System (GIS). The Chairman noted his desire that, for each candidate site that makes the final priority list, we fully tap into the County’s resources—including mapping each site and providing aerial photos showing the surrounding infrastructure and land uses. (Frank mentioned the high cost of printing out blowups of color aerial photos.)

It was also noted that it would be very useful to convert the existing candidate list to a true database that allows sites to be rank-ordered in accordance with multiple separate screening criteria—such as site size. Frank indicated that, to create such a database, it would be necessary to develop a comprehensive list of data entry / search criteria (“data elements”). The Chairman responded that such a list pretty much already exists in the form of the Potential Site Ranking Criteria set forth in an 11/16/00 tabulation. That tabulation includes a total of 25 ranking criteria, grouped into the 3 major categories set forth in the table of Candidate Sites.

It was mentioned that our intern, Michael Clugston, has GIS experience, but that the county’s GIS database is massive and largely unintelligible to the uninitiated. The importance of training Michael in effectively tapping in to relevant county GIS files was underscored as an early priority.

As noted in item #5, above, a system also needs to be established for maintaining a retrievable database for non-priority sites that are ultimately dropped from the Candidate List.

7. Excess NYSDOT Property: In view of the welcome addition to the group of Mary Brophy (of NYSDOT’s Environmental Design Group), and formerly with Syracuse Research Corp., the Chairman asked whether there was any counterpart in New York State to a program that exists in Maryland under which there is a systematic effort by the State DOT to transfer to private ownership excess right-of-way property—some of which would qualify as brownfields. Mary said she was unaware of any such program in New York.

Mary had previously provided to Stacy (who passed out copies to the group) copies of a March 4, 1998 Federal Highway Administration “Policy Revision to Support the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative” (FHWA Policy) and an earlier (12/11/96) Federal “Department of Transportation Brownfields Strategy Action Plan” (DOT Strategy).

The FHWA Policy encourages participation in transportation projects that include the use and redevelopment of contaminated sites when appropriate. “Transportation projects can support brownfields redevelopment, not only by using contaminated sites when appropriate, but also by providing access to these areas.” It replaced an earlier policy that emphasized the avoidance of all contaminated properties as a first consideration.

The DOT Strategy talks, among other things, about encouraging transportation providers to partner with existing and future brownfield pilots and agencies, where appropriate, to leverage cleanup funding and development for transportation-related projects.

Someone made reference to the fact that the new Apalachin bridge was located there rather than in Endicott to avoid going through the old Endicott Landfill.

8. Potential Funding Sources: An updated (1/22/01) tabulation of Funding Sources for Brownfields Redevelopment (new information is italicized) was passed out to Subcommittee members.

Paul Nelson provided additional information about HUD’s “brownfields economic development initiative” (BEDI) [see tabulation, item #6] and why it is less helpful to Binghamton area localities than might first appear. The information makes clear that “a request for new Section 108 loan guarantee authority must accompany each BEDI application” and that “BEDI and Section 108 funds must be used in conjunction with the same economic development project.” The minimum BEDI to Section 108 ratio is 1:1, with a maximum grant amount of $2 million. Non-entitlement communities, including those in New York, may apply for and receive grants under the BEDI programs, but if a non-entitlement community receives a BEDI grant and applies for Section 108 loan guarantee assistance, it will be necessary to pledge Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds as partial security for the loan guarantee.

The Chairman referred to items ##15 (EPA’s Targeted Brownfields Assessment (TBA) program and 21 (NYS Environmental Restoration [Brownfields] Fund) as two programs that provide funding for brownfields-oriented site investigation activities that could help to promote brownfields reuse by reducing uncertainty and liability concerns about such sites. Bob Murphy pointed out that there are a lot of strings attached to securing Bond Act funding from DEC—even for investigative (not cleanup) activities. Not only must funded investigations be unusually thorough (following Superfund-type RI/FS procedures), but where Bond Act money is used even for this limited purpose, DEC tends to insist on excessive levels of cleanup. EPA’s TAB program, which lacks similar negatives, appears to warrant further consideration.

9. Future Agenda Items: Stacy will attempt to arrange for Bob Sweet (ESD) to speak at our next meeting. (If he is unavailable, Bob Murphy will be asked to brief the Subcommittee on the status of State-level brownfields initiatives.)

10. Future Meetings: The next meeting is scheduled for February 14—at 4:30 p.m. at EMC’s offices. Scheduling of the March meeting will be deferred until that time in an effort to accommodate a visit by Mark Gregor of Rochester.

11. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Recorder, Ken Kamlet

1/25/01