ny-brownfields.com

New York State Economic
Development Council

http://www.nysedc.org/legislativenews/wht_papers.shtml
New York MUST adopt a workable brownfield policy
Advocates for more restrictive land use policies, as well as those who support stronger economic growth, conceptually support the idea of implementing policies to encourage the clean-up and re-use of brownfield sites. Many of these sites are located in urban settings where businesses have fled to the suburbs to take advantage of less expensive construction costs, newer infrastructure, and a more pleasant work environment for their employees. From Brooklyn to Buffalo, urban sites that could provide thousands of good jobs and millions in tax revenues lie unused because of the stalemate over brownfield reform.

Over the last few years, NYSEDC has worked with The Business Council and other municipal organizations, developers, businesses, and consultants to develop recommendations for reforming and refinancing the state’s superfund program and providing incentives for the cleanup and productive reuse of brownfield sites.

This coalition has developed detailed legislative proposals on each of these issues, which are summarized below.

  1. A risk-based approach to site remediation should be adopted, with risk assessments based on the future use of a site and other generally accepted risk factors. This approach should apply to surface soils, subsurface soils and groundwater.
  2. Responsible parties that complete a state-approved cleanup plan should receive a release from future liability – with limited “reopeners.” Non-responsible parties – including municipalities, lenders, and entities doing “voluntary” cleanups at brownfield sites – should be protected from future liability for contamination they did not cause. 
  3. A “pay as you go” approach to funding the state’s remedial program should be approved, as well as a reasonable increase in annual state spending on remediation programs. Since state-financed cleanups result in broad public health and economic benefits, these expenditures should be financed through existing general revenues, not narrowly targeted business fees.
  4. NYSEDC also supports the adoption of a statutory “voluntary cleanup program” that – through changes in site investigation, remedy selection and environmental liability provisions, and through targeted financial incentives – will encourage the cleanup and reuse of contaminated sites.
  5. NYSEDC supports an expansion of economic development incentives to encourage private sector businesses to remediate and develop existing brownfield sites. A listing of those incentives is included in the legislative proposal developed by The Business Council coalition in which NYSEDC participates. 
  6. NYSEDC supports requiring the state (DEC) to benchmark itself with the best practices in other states with regard to the brownfield remediation process. Several states, including Pennsylvania and Ohio have operated successful brownfield programs longer than New York has. DEC should identify practices that allow brownfield sites in those states to be remediated and developed in a more expedited manner than similar sites in New York.

Background: Property that has been contaminated by hazardous wastes, hazardous substances, solid wastes, or petroleum-related substances can pose a threat to public health and environmental quality. This contamination also has an adverse impact on the economically beneficial use of such sites, especially in urban areas. Finally, the remediation of such sites can impose significant financial costs on state government.

The timely cleanup of contaminated sites, whether by the current owner or operator or by an outside party interested in redeveloping the site, will produce environmental and economic benefits for the people of the state, and will reduce the need for public funds for remedial projects. The remediation of such sites will also remove a major barrier to their redevelopment, which will produce significant local economic benefits.

While the state’s existing remediation program has made some progress in addressing contaminated sites, the state could achieve more timely cleanups through an alternative approach that addresses site-specific risks, and that provides liability releases once cleanups are complete. The state could also achieve the cleanup and reuse of sites by “non-responsible parties” by offering economic development incentives that help offset the cost of environmental remediation.

These approaches to the remediation and redevelopment of “brownfield” sites have proven effective in a number of other states where they have been adopted. Importantly, if they are not adopted, it is likely that many currently contaminated sites will never be remediated, and, as such, will continue to pose environmental and health risks.