Notes from the meeting held on Wednesday, January 23, 2002

5^th Floor Planning Department Conference Room

Edwin L. Crawford County Office Building

Present: Stacy Merola, Joanna Corey, Kenneth Kamlet, Paul Thompson, Chip McElwee, Ron Brink, Joe Graney and Doug Garner Guest Experts: Joe Moody and Greg Lesniak AWE: Frank Evangelisti, Bernadette Blaisure, Dee Golazeski, and Joel Boyd.

1. The meeting convened at 4:35 p.m. On a motion from Ron Brink, seconded by Joe Graney, the minutes from the December meeting were approved as submitted.

2. Member Items of Interest: (a) The NYSDEC’s 2001 Remedial Plan was circulated. The data indicate that the completion of Investigations and Remedial Actions in the program declined significantly in each of the past 3 years in relation to the previous year. During this period, the number of new Voluntary Cleanup Agreements remained fairly steady. This might suggest that applicants who enter the program are finding it difficult to emerge.

(b) Ken shared his summary of State Voluntary Cleanup Programs throughout the U.S. [EDITOR’S NOTE: Copies of the summary are available from the EMC.] As of 2002, the only state without any form of a Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) is North Dakota. Among the 49 States (plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) with such a program, New York State is one of only six with a VCP not expressly authorized by statute. New York (along with 9 other states) has chosen to regulate suspect carcinogens with risk levels as low as 1 part-per-million (that has been compared to the increased cancer risk of smoking 14 cigarettes in a lifetime). Six states (CT, MA, MI, NV, NC, and OH) have provided by law for various “licensed environmental professionals” to take over certain state duties to expedite approval of voluntary cleanups. New York State does not delegate any authority to licensed professionals, and is the only state which requires VCP remediation reports and plans to be certified by State registered professional engineers. (This certification is still not viewed as definitive, however; review and approval by DEC local, regional, and central office staff, and written concurrence by the State Department of Health are still required.)

(c) Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act. This legislation, which amends the Federal Superfund Law (CERCLA), was signed by President Bush on January 11, 2002. It not only provides liability relief to small businesses from the strict, joint, and several liability provisions of Superfund, it also provides a firm statutory basis for relaxing Superfund’s strict liability provisions at brownfield sites for certain “innocent” and/or “bona fide” purchasers, and for contamination arising from certain contiguous properties. It also continues and increases funding for certain brownfields grant and financial assistance programs, and it largely precludes Federal enforcement actions at sites remediated under State brownfields programs.

(d) Ken informed the group of several recent reports that survey brownfields and voluntary cleanup activities around the country. Brownfields “State of the States”: An End-of-Session Review of Initiatives and Program Impacts in the 50 States, by Charles Bartsch, Rachel Deane & Bridget Dorfman ot the Northeast-Midwest Institute (44 of 50 states participated in the survey). New Mission for Brownfields, by Joel Hirschhorn of the Center for Best Practices of the National Governors Association (singled out 5 states as “leading the way” in using brownfields programs to promote “smart growth”: MD, MA, MI, NJ, and PA). An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50 State Study, 1998 Update, by the Environmental Law Institute. Revitalizing Urban America: Cleaning Up the Brownfields, by Dana Joel Gattuso of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (July 2000). Assessment of State Initiatives to Promote Redevelopment of Brownfields (prepared for: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research), by ICF Consulting (Fairfax, VA) (December 1999). Recycling America’s Land by the United States Conference of Mayors (February 2000) (based on survey responses from 231 cities). All of these reports can be downloaded free of charge from the internet.

(e) The Susquehanna Sierra Club (the local Sierra Club chapter) submitted a support letter to the Planning Department for Broome County’s pursuance of the Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot. This letter will be forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their consideration.

3. 2002 Work Plan Items: A draft prepared by Ken, containing eight proposed Work Plan elements (see enclosure) was circulated to subcommittee members and served as the basis for an extensive discussion.

Most items on the draft Work Plan (#2, 3, 6, 7, & 8) required little elaboration or discussion.

Topics of discussion included the preparation and maintenance of a Brownfields funding source matrix (#4). Ken will use matrices prepared for the DEC by Dvirka and Bartilucci, Consulting Engineers on “State of New York Assistance and Incentive Programs” and “Summary of Federal Assistance and Incentive Programs”, in conjunction with the funding sources outline he previously prepared, as a starting point in developing a consolidated matrix for use by the Subcommittee.

A new item was added (#9) to address the public dissemination of the Subcommittee’s principal work-products. Paul proposed a broad public outreach effort, to not only educate the public but to secure public buy-in to the results of the Subcommittee’s efforts. Ken noted that, if the County is fortunate enough to be awarded the EPA Brownfields Assessment Pilot Demonstration Project grant, there is a substantial public outreach component to the grant. Also, the ongoing AngelouEconomics Strategic Planning study for the County will be addressing brownfields and also has a major public involvement component. The results of the BFSC’s efforts can also be the topic of a full presentation at a future EMC meeting. Additional ideas were also discussed.

Finally, the three-pronged ranking strategy (#1) was a topic of extensive discussion. Paul Thompson wanted it made clear when the final list is released that BFSC has simply screened the candidate sites and was not making any ultimate political decisions. The group agreed that decision-makers may well have different rationales for choosing brownfield sites for cleanup or redevelopment and that it was therefore useful and appropriate to provide 2 or 3 separate lists of “top 20” candidate sites. For example, Joe Graney suggested that there might be a need to redevelop sites in bad neighborhoods, which are not necessarily prime sites for developers. Ken noted that very small sites (e.g., abandoned former gas stations) in residential areas, although they would be of little value from an economic development standpoint, might be of great value as neighborhood parks or recreational areas. Also, as Ron Brink has pointed out in the past, some sites may deserve priority attention because of residual contamination problems that need to be addressed. It was acknowledged that, as we get more deeply into the rankings, it will become apparent how many lists can be developed. We should not pre-judge this issue and should see how things logically shake out.

The group voted unanimously to accept the draft Work Plan elements, as modified, and to recommend their adoption by the full EMC.

4. Next meeting: The next meeting will be held on February 20, 2002 at 4:30 p.m. S&W Redevelopment (an offshoot of Stearns & Wheler Environmental Engineers and Consultants) may send a representative as a guest speaker in the near future, but only if Stacy establishes that they have done voluntary cleanup projects in New York State. We will also begin implementing our three-pronged strategy for ranking Broome County Brownfield sites. (A work group of volunteers will be convened prior to this meeting to assess the state of the database, to test how the ranking factors will be used, and to generally smooth the way for the resumption of ranking activities by the subcommittee. Members who may be interested in participating in this work group include Ken Kamlet, Ron Brink, Chip McElwee, Joe Graney, and Doug Garner.)

5. The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

Recorder, Ken Kamlet

1/28/02. Editor, Joanna Corey

Attachment (under separate cover)