I want to thank Jack Davis and Cindy Westerman for extending me the opportunity to speak to the local Sierra Club.  Having been part of the leadership team of a major national environmental group in Washington, D.C. for 12-1/2 years, I know how much of an impact grassroots organizations can have on public policy.

Here’s the commonly used definition of a brownfield.  It refers to an industrial or commercial facility that is abandoned or under-used, where real or perceived contamination complicates the ability to expand or redevelop the property.  Also implicit in the term is the potential for urban revitalization.

This Risk-Benefit matrix illustrates the factors that control real-world decisions to redevelop or bypass a Brownfield site.  The higher the return on investment (ROI) and the lower the liability risk, the more viable the prospects for redevelopment.  For example, the sites in the lower right-hand quadrant, which are high-risk, low-return, are viewed as the least viable and, are, therefore, the least likely to be cleaned up in a voluntary cleanup program.  Yet, these are the ones from a human health perspective that are often most in need of cleanup.  Between the two extremes are numerous “threshold” sites that can be pushed either way.  They can be pushed into the viable category through a combination of enhanced financial incentives and/or relaxed regulatory disincentives.

EPA and State environmental agencies generally have overlapping, but distinct Brownfields-related goals.  EPA wants to concentrate on high-hazard, Superfund-caliber sites.  It wants to encourage voluntary cleanups of even high-hazard sites before they get to the point of formal listing on the NPL.  And, it wants to boost the redevelopment of previously used sites especially in economically disadvantaged urban areas.  States generally also want to encourage voluntary cleanups—because this helps minimize State costs.  They generally want to limit sprawl and encourage recycling of urban land.  And, they want to convert underused land to jobs and tax base.  In New York, the usual rules don’t apply.  Here, the strength of the environmental lobby is such that the primary goal of the State’s brownfields program has been to clean such sites to predisposal conditions.

From the standpoint of the local community, brownfield-related concerns and objectives include cleaning contaminated sites, redeveloping underutilized properties, creating new jobs and tax base, discouraging pollution, avoiding “brown-lining,” and encouraging banks to invest in the local community.

Among the most important philosophical underpinnings of a successful brownfields program, which are reflected both in the federal program and in the programs of almost every state but New York are the need for: certainty and predictability in cleanup standards and objectives; use-based or risk-based cleanup standards; an accelerated cleanup process; a revitalization rather than a remediation or enforcement focus; a flexible, user-friendly approach, rather than a rigid, one-size-fits-all, punitive program; shared public and private sector enthusiasm for the program; and an enlightened community participation program, which balances the public’s right to know against the need for a streamlined decision-making process.

The Angelou Economics Strategic Economic Development Plan—more commonly known as the “BC Plan” for Greater Binghamton—recommended: a focus on land-use corridors, particularly “gateways” into the community; strategic redevelopment of brownfield sites; expanding infrastructure to underutilized sites; and transforming the central business districts of Binghamton, Johnson City, and Endicott.

DEC has been in the unenviable position of running a voluntary cleanup program since 1994 without the benefit of specific legislative authority or authorization.  That has made it a focus of heavy criticism from both the business community and environmental groups.  It may be one reason that DEC relies so heavily on standards and procedures established for state Superfund sites in administering the voluntary cleanup program at low-risk brownfield sites.

This slide shows that DEC Region 7, which includes the Southern Tier and parts of Central New York, falls in the middle of the 9 DEC regions with 108 state Superfund sites.  The largest number of State Superfund sites can be found in DEC region 9 (Buffalo), but the most toxic sites are in region 1 (Long Island).  This slide also shows that region 7 has the highest number of brownfield sites in all of Upstate New York—coming in a close third to New York City and the Mid-Hudson Valley on a statewide basis.  Also, on a per capita basis, the Southern Tier has the highest concentration of brownfield sites—second only to the North Country/Mohawk Valley region.

There is no official “inventory” of brownfield sites in Broome County.  However, the Brownfields Subcommittee, which I chair, within the County’s Environmental Management Council, in conjunction with the Department of Planning & Economic Development, has developed a database of brownfield sites with currently includes upwards of 81 sites.  More than 1/3rd of these sites are in the Town of Union—if you include the villages of Endicott and Johnson City.  Another 22% of the sites are in the City of Binghamton.  The remaining sites are distributed among all of Broome County’s local jurisdictions—so that, with one exception, every locality has at least one brownfield site.

The BFSC has pulled a diverse group of people from the community, including a number of “guest experts,” together to systematically address the brownfields issue in Greater Binghamton.  Despite some constraints associated with being under the EMC umbrella, the BFSC has been a focal point for brownfields-related initiatives in Broome County.  We’ve inventoried sites, assembled information about them in a database, developed methodologies for evaluating and ranking the sites, and prodded the County to seek and obtain a federal brownfields “pilot program” grant which we are helping the County to administer.  For example, in connection with the EPA grant, we assisted the EMC director in developing a Community Public Participation Plan.  As part of that, we will be hosting a community public participation meeting at the Broome County library on June 25^th in the evening, at a time to be announced.  I hope many of you will be able to make it to that meeting.  Let me hasten to add that, I am conveying this information as a private citizen and not officially on behalf of the EMC or the brownfields subcommittee.

The Brownfield pilot program grant is run by a Brownfields Coordinator, who is the County’s Chief Planner, Frank Evangelisti.  The effort is overseen and assisted by a management team, which includes the County Planning Commissioner, the EMC director, two County Health Department representatives, and the Chair of the BFSC.  The County is in the process of identifying candidate sites for assessment under the grant and has solicited qualifications from environmental consulting firms interested in performing this work.

The term “brownfield” is somewhat subjective because it relates in large part to a third-party’s perceptions of contamination and risks.  The term covers a broad spectrum of sites, ranging from quite clean to highly contaminated, with widely different exposure risks and cleanup liabilities.  New EPA and state brownfield policies often apply differently to different types of brownfield sites.

As mentioned earlier, the term Brownfield can cover a broad spectrum of sites, ranging from low-risk sites that have never crossed EPA’s or DEC’s radar screens, to full-fledged Superfund National Priorities List sites—which are generally not eligible for coverage under a state’s voluntary cleanup program.  In between, are so-called “NRAP” or “archived” sites, which EPA has characterized, but feels do not warrant further remedial action (NFRAP stands for “No Further Remedial Action Planned”); non-NPL sites on the CERCLIS tracking system; State Superfund sites; and hazardous waste generator, treatment, storage, or disposal sites.

Up-to-date information on various categories of contaminated sites in Broome County, or in other parts of the state, can be accessed on the internet through the EPA and DEC websites.  For example, on this slide, I have tabulated information on the County’s 4 active Federal Superfund sites; 3 sites that have been deleted from the Superfund National Priorities List; and another 2 sites for which construction of the Superfund remedy has been completed, which will probably be delisted from the NPL in the near future.  There are also 11 sites on the CERCLIS inventory and 17 NFRAP sites that have been taken off the inventory and archived.

The next slide lists the 11 Broome County projects that have been addressed under DEC’s voluntary cleanup program; and the sole Broome County project currently being addressed under the municipal brownfields program.

As noted in my Legislative Gazette article, there are dramatic economic benefits that can flow from a system that promotes the revitalization of brownfield sites.  These benefits include:

• $10 to $100 in economic benefits for every $1 spent by the State.
• $2.48 in leveraged private investment for every $1 of federal spending
• An average of 4.5 acres of preserved open space for every one acre redeveloped.
• And enhanced value of nearby commercial and industrial properties—ranging from a 4% increase for industrial properties to a 62% increase for hotel sites.

  ---

States like Pennsylvania play an active role in marketing and promoting the resale of Brownfield sites.  The Pennsylvania Site Finder program works like a multiple listing service for Brownfield sites.  Brownfield Inventory Grants (BIGs) are given by the State to municipalities and economic development agencies to inventory their Brownfield properties and post those available for redevelopment on the PA Site Finder website.  Grantees receive $1,000 for each site posted, up to a maximum of $50,000.

In 1996, the National Sierra Club issued Brownfields Guidance, which still appears on its website and still seems to influence its policies and positions—although subsequent experience has shown that many of the concerns raised have not materialized.  For example, the Guidance expresses the fear that if the same health-based standards are not applied to all contaminated sites, or if some degradation is allowed at certain sites, the incentive to prevent pollution will be undermined.  The flaw in this argument is that innocent investors and redevelopers who had nothing to do with causing the pollution at a brownfield site cannot be treated the same as responsible polluters.  For two reasons: first, it would not be fair; and, second, it would deter people from coming forward to acquire or redevelop brownfield sites.  If those who contaminated the site can be found, they should be forced to do the fullest cleanup allowed by law.  The Guidance also argues that, if incentives are needed to attract cleanup volunteers, the incentives should be financial, rather than lowering cleanup standards.  The problem with that logic is that fear of open-ended legal liability is often a more pressing concern than simple dollars and cents—especially in Upstate New York where real estate values are much lower than Downstate.

The Guidance argues that risk assessment can’t prove that a cleanup method is safe enough.  It is true that nothing can be proven with absolute certainty.  But zero risk is unattainable, and if you place too many safety margins on brownfield cleanup standards, you will quickly make those cleanups unaffordable.  Right now the problem is not standards that are too lenient, but standards and procedures that are far too stringent and open-ended for low-risk sites, and legislative proposals that will make a bad situation even worse.  Should site use-restrictions be attached to the deed where less than full residential cleanups are done?  Sure.  Should limits be placed on the ability of responsible parties, or sites with newly generated pollution, to participate in the voluntary cleanup program?  Absolutely.  But do we want to force every brownfield site, no matter how it will be used, to be cleaned up to Garden of Eden levels of pristineness?  Absolutely not.  Neither the government nor the private sector could afford the staggering price tags involved.

There are 3 main Brownfield bills currently under discussion in Albany.  The Marcellino bill (S.2935) has already passed the Senate.  The DiNapoli bill (A.7507), which is on a fast-track for approval in the Assembly.  And, the Schimminger/Alesi bill (A.7512/S.4996), which has been side-stepped in the Assembly but could be resurrected in the Senate.

The Marcellino bill is not much of an improvement on the status quo.  It includes Superfund-like cleanup provisions and relies heavily on site-by-site DEC decisionmaking.

The DiNapoli bill out-Superfunds Superfund.  While the cleanup goal currently under State Superfund is restoration to pre-disposal conditions to the extent feasible and authorized by law, the cleanup goal of the DiNapoli bill is to “achieve a complete and permanent cleanup” of brownfield sites sufficient to allow any site use without restriction, including restoration of all non-saline groundwater to drinking water standards.  Not only does the DiNapoli bill subject cleanup volunteers to an unrealistic cleanup goal, and vague and onerous cleanup standards, but it creates strong disincentives for innocent current owners of brownfield sites to ever consider selling the property to a potential cleanup volunteer.

The Schimminger/Alesi bill mandates source removal and ensures protection of public health and the environment, while providing for clear cleanup standards.  This is the only bill of the three before the Legislature that has any chance of improving the existing DEC administrative program.

This is a somewhat whimsical flow-diagram of how Brownfields decisions are made.  Unfortunately, New York’s program makes even this satirical representation look good by comparison.  Hopefully, that will change if meaningful Brownfields legislation makes it through the state legislature this year.  I’ll let you work your way through the flow diagram at your leisure….

One thing that I believe is necessary to make New York’s brownfields program effective is a change in mindset (attitude overhaul?) by DEC.  In other states, the environmental agency and the business community are enthusiastic about working together to revitalize brownfield sites.  There is none of that in New York State.  Recognizing that this is not likely to change as long as DEC continues to treat the brownfields program as an offshoot of the Superfund remediation program, both the Schimminger bill and the Marcellino bill would move certain brownfields functions to a separate office or separate entities.  The Schimminger bill would move the whole program to a new office of “smart development and brownfield revitalization.”  The Marcellino bill would create two outside entities to help steer the program: a 14-member Brownfields Advisory Board and a 7-member State Brownfield Redevelopment Council.  The DiNapoli bill, unfortunately, would leave things as they are.  This slide illustrates the very different and much more positive attitudes that pervade other states’ programs.  In Maryland, the Maryland Department of the Environment—MDE, to promote brownfields redevelopment, put out foam insulators imprinted as shown on the slide.

They also gave out pens with a message of encouraging brownfields redevelopment.

If we looked for a slogan that matched New York State DEC’s attitude to go with its acronym, what would we come up with?....

Here are some suggestions from colleagues at the EMC as well as in the business community

One of the speakers at the Clinton Brownfields conference made the telling comment that New York State remains impervious to how other states do things—even to how every other state does things—because key state officials and leaders have an “Empire State” mindset that makes them think we are different and better than everyone else, so that we have to do things our own way.  In the Brownfields arena, different is not better.  And the sooner we recognize that, the better off we’ll all be.  Thank you.