BROWNFIELDS SUBCOMMITTEE
Broome County Environmental Management Council
Natural Resources Committee
Present: Stacy Merola, Ken Kamlet (Chair), Chip McElwee, Frank Evangelisti, Julie Sweet (Planning Commissioner), Paul Thompson, Doug Garner (BAE Systems), Cynthia Westerman (Vestal CAC). Guest Experts: Tom Suozzo (NYS DEC), __________(Johnson City), Greg Lesniak (WB Satterthwaite). [Add names of additional attendees]
1. The meeting convened at 4:00 p.m.
2. This special meeting was convened to receive a presentation on the U.S. EPA Region 2 (New York City) brownfields program and how Broome County can best position itself to receive Federal brownfields funding. Our guest presenters were Larry D’Andrea, regional Brownfields Coordinator, and Betsy Donovan, Brownfields Project Manager. Betsy also works in the Superfund Program.
Mr. D’Andrea began by indicating that Broome County was really at “an unfair disadvantage” in applying for a Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (CRLF) brownfields grant—because most of the other applicants had been prior brownfields grant recipients. (This despite the fact that the CRLF guidelines stated clearly that this grant was open to communities that had not been awardees of prior EPA grants.) He later commented that we “may be lucky we didn’t get it,” because the CRLF program was set up within a regulatory framework it doesn’t really fit within (it must be geared to the National Contingency Plan, which was designed to address Superfund and not Brownfield sites). There are also significant restrictions on the financial end. S. 350, recently passed by the U.S. Senate, when enacted into law, will rectify some of these problems and make the program more clear.
He strongly advised that Broome County apply for an Assessment Pilot Grant in the Fall. These Pilot grants encompass “end-use” planning, including remedial planning—and not just site characterization. The next round will probably have a closing date in October. The basic grant amount is $200,000. However, it is possible to apply for and receive an additional $50,000 targeted toward greenspace development and the return of brownfield sites to “green use.” Mr. D’Anndrea offered to meet with us again in the Fall, just prior to initiation of an application for an Assessment Pilot grant application, to provide guidance on preparing the application. He will also give us feedback on an advance review of a draft of our application. All of this is designed to maximize the effectiveness of our submittal and increase our probability of success.
Mr. D’Andrea indicated that EPA is very much interested in coordinating brownfield projects with Riverfront development and Rail-Trail conversions.
The selection of awardees is ultimately made by the EPA Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response. A political appointee to fill this slot hasn’t been designated yet. The Acting A.A. currently is Mike Shapiro. A selection committee, made up of various regional and headquarters officials evaluates the applications and makes recommendations to the Assistant Administrator.
An Assessment Pilot provides seed money to help develop a fully rounded brownfields program. EPA will work with us to help bring in funding from other sources as well. A list of cooperating Federal agencies that also have brownfields funding programs can be found on EPA Region 2’s website.
Mr. D’Andrea made reference to a publication by the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), which operates the Northeast Hazardous Substances Research Center. (This Center provides Brownfields support to communities through two programs: The Technical Outreach Services for Communities [TOSC] program and the Technical Assistance to Brownfields Communities [TAB] program.) The publication (available on NJIT’s website) was: “Life After the Grant: Sustaining a Community Brownfields Initiative” (August 2000). It emphasizes the elements necessary to sustain a brownfields program and provide continuity after grant-funded projects are completed and initial EPA funding is exhausted. Mr. D’Andrea outlined seven major components recognized as important in promoting sustainability: (1) Community Vision; (2) Community Involvement; (3) Public-Private Partnerships; (4) Institutionalization of Brownfield Strategies; (5) Reuse Incentives; (6) Technical Expertise (including EPA’s Technology Innovation Office, NJIT’s Northeast Hazardous Substances Research Center, and the TOSC and TAB programs); and (7) Federal and State Program Participation.
Presumably, these are subject areas that should be addressed in making initial grant application submittals—i.e., to provide assurance that grants are being used to support sustainable rather than flash-in-the-pan programs.
Once a Pilot Grant is awarded, EPA convenes a kickoff meeting in the local community of the grant recipient. This meeting is run by a team, consisting of Al Price (SUNY-Buffalo), Charlie Bartsch (NE-Midwest Institute), NJIT, and Larry D’Andrea. The first half of the meeting will be presentations by these people. The second half involves interactions with the participants.
One of Al Price’s “big things” is “using the waterfront for public purposes.
Also, during the tenure of the grant, there will be a quarterly meetings held with groups of 3 Pilot localities and all of the relevant State and Federal agencies. The next such meeting is scheduled for early August. Although these meetings are intended for the benefit of Pilot communities with active grants, Mr. D’Andrea indicated that it might be possible, if desired, for a representative from Broome County to sit in on this meeting as a prospective future grantee.
EPA absorbs the costs of these meetings. They don’t come out of the $200K (or $250K) grant award.
EPA Headquarters and other regions place more of a premium than Region 2 on identifying and enumerating specific brownfields sites in a grant application. Mr. D’Andrea, on the other hand, is more interested “in the process.” However, it is probably desirable to include a list of sites—both because other evaluators will be looking for such a list and because 40 CFR Subpart O requires listing of sites when a cooperative agreement is entered into between EPA and a local government.
The question was asked whether grant money can be used to assess privately-owned, as opposed to publicly owned, sites. The answer was that privately owned sites are “more problematic”—in the sense that it must be demonstrated that Federal funding for such sites yields a significant public benefit and doesn’t simply enrich a private beneficiary. Despite the small size of Pilot Program grants, some EPA lawyers are actually concerned about “windfall profits.” He stated that EPA Headquarters “loves sites that are taken over for back taxes.” Site access is a key issue. For a privately-owned site, this would need to be worked out as part of the initial agreement. In order to receive a grant, the applicant has to be a “political subdivision.” This term probably doesn’t fit a quasi-governmental entity, like an Industrial Development Agency.
Mr. D’Andrea indicated that there is no formal requirement that a state have a statutory Brownfields program before EPA will negotiate a Brownfields Memorandum of Agreement with it. In fact, an MOA with New York State was first drafted in 1996—although it was later abandoned. The importance of having an MOA in place will be greatly lessened when pending brownfields legislation is passed at the Federal level. That legislation will make clear, as a matter of statute, that EPA may not (except in very limited circumstances) interfere when a State is actively overseeing the cleanup of a brownfield site.
Mr. D’Andrea briefly described EPA’s Targeted Brownfields Assessment (TBA) Program, which is designed to minimize the uncertainties surrounding suspected contamination at a brownfields site. Although EPA can do little more than provide a less-than-ironclad “comfort letter” to the non-responsible party who requests the assessment, as a practical matter, EPA will rarely pursue enforcement actions against cooperative participants in this program if the assessment turns up a problem which the owner/participant lacks the wherewithal to address.
Among the other Federal agencies which are most active in providing brownfields grant funding are HUD, EDA (in the Department of Commerce), and DOT.
Mr. D’Andrea stated that the new EPA Administrator, Christie Whitman, was very familiar with brownfields issues and the importance of brownfields programs from her tenure as Governor of New Jersey. Within EPA, she has made this a “priority.”
The extension of brownfields programs to RCRA [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste] corrective action sites is illustrated by the Bethlehem Steel site in Lackawana, PA.
The extension of these programs to Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites is illustrated by a $100,000 grant to Trenton, NJ. Federal legislation (S. 350), originally allocated $200 million for brownfields programs, but then tacked on another $50 million for UST sites. This legislation would eliminate the brownfields exclusion that currently applies to the use of Superfund dollars to fund UST cleanups.
In response to a question, Mr. D’Andrea acknowledged that the EPA brownfields program is a “paper-intensive” program. Grant recipients must submit quarterly and annual status reports and 14 measures are following in a brownfields tracking database. The reason for this is that EPA’s expenditures in this arena are subject to close scrutiny by Congressional Committees and EPA’s own Inspector General.
Answering another question, Mr. D’Andrea indicated that EPA could possibly provide GIS and database assistance to us through NJIT. He mentioned that the City of Syracuse is tying into Syracuse University (?) for such support.
EPA Region 2 has often encouraged larger cities to apply for grants and then have the County apply—as a means of directing more funding to an area. So, having multiple applicants is not only permitted; it is encouraged.
Asked to evaluate the organization and action plan of the Broome County Brownfields Subcommittee (as provided to EPA a week earlier), Mr. D’Andrea and Ms. Donovan both stated that they found it very “impressive.” The one area where they felt we could do more to enhance our program was providing “more community involvement.” They gave the City of Trenton as an example. Trenton enlisted the local Community Development Corporation (“Isles” [sp?]) to work with them. They also worked with Rutgers and NJIT to obtain leadership training. The end result was a community-based redevelopment plan.
They noted that “you really need an educational component to go along with brownfields programs.
In certain circumstances, brownfields funding can be used (in part) for building demolition. Examples are the Carr site (sp?) in Johnstown, PA and the Mechanic Street site in Perth Amboy, NJ.
In Utica, NY, the Department of Public Works formed teams to train people to clean up debris, etc.
While there may be some ability to utilize brownfields funding to redevelop former Superfund NPL [National Priorities List] sites, these would be closely scrutinized to ensure that Superfund and brownfields money were not both being spent to accomplish the same thing. Also CERCLA NPL sites (which are still in that status) are not eligible for brownfields funding.
3. The next regular meeting was tentatively set for Wednesday, June 13th.
4. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Recorder, Ken Kamlet
5/25/01