cover letter attachments 18... · poverty” where 20% or more of its population has lived in...

COVER LETTER ATTACHMENTS:

Other Factors Checklist Letter from State Authority

71

Appendix 3

Cleanup Other Factors Checklist

Name of Applicant: _________________________________________________________

Please identify (with an x) which, if any of the below items apply to your community or your

project as described in your proposal. To be considered for an Other Factor, you must include the

page number where each applicable factor is discussed in your proposal. EPA will verify these

disclosures prior to selection and may consider this information during the selection process. If

this information is not clearly discussed in your narrative proposal or in any other attachments, it

will not be considered during the selection process.

Other Factor Page #

None of the Other Factors are applicable.

Community population is 10,000 or less.

The jurisdiction is located within, or includes, a county experiencing “persistent

poverty” where 20% or more of its population has lived in poverty over the past

30 years, as measured by the 1990 and 2000 decennial censuses and the most

recent Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates.

Applicant is, or will assist, a federally recognized Indian tribe or United States

territory.

Target brownfield sites are impacted by mine-scarred land.

Applicant demonstrates firm leveraging commitments for facilitating brownfield

project completion, by identifying in the proposal the amounts and contributors

of resources and including documentation that ties directly to the project.

Applicant is a recipient of an EPA Brownfields Area-Wide Planning grant.

forbesj

Oval

forbesj

Text Box

City of Rochester, New York

forbesj

Text Box

X - page 10

forbesj

Text Box

X - page 14

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

Division of Environmental Remediation, Bureau of Program Management

625 Broadway, 12th Floor. Albany, NY 12233-7012

P: (518) 402-9764 I F: (518) 402-9722

www.dec.ny.gov .

Honorable Lovely A. Warren Mayor - City of Rochester City Hall Room 308A Rochester, NY 14614

Dear Mayor Warren :

OCT 25.2017

This is to acknowledge that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Department) received your letter dated October 17, 2017, for a state acknowledgement letter for United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Brownfield grant.

I understand that the City plans to submit two EPA Brownfield Grant Proposals : a Brownfield Cleanup Grant proposal in the amount of $200,000 for 121-125 Reynolds Street, and a Community-Wide Assessment Grant proposal in the amount of $200,000 to establish a brownfield opportunity area site assessment program.

The Department encourages initiatives to redevelop brownfields with the goal of mitigating any environmental and health impacts that they might pose.

ec: T. Wesley, USEPA Region 2

Sincerely,

auraZ~ irector

Bureau of Program Management

M. Cruden/B. Schilling/P. Miller, NYSDEC

~0~0RK I Department of PO•ru•1rv Environmental

Conservation

FY2018 Brownfield Cleanup Grant Application for Petroleum & Hazardous Substances Brownfields City of Rochester, New York

Select Acronyms: CT=Census Tract; DEQ=City of Rochester Division of Environmental Quality; MCDH=Monroe County Department of Health NYS=New York State; NBD=City Neighborhood and Business Development; NBDHD=City Neighborhood and Business Development Housing Division; NYSDEC=New York State Department

of Environmental Conservation; NYSDOH=New York State Department of Health; SCL=Soil Cleanup Level; SCO=Soil Cleanup Objective

1

1. COMMUNITY NEED 1.a.i. Community & Target Area Descriptions: The City of Rochester, New York is located in west central New York, approximately 60 miles east of Buffalo. Once dominated by a small number of major manufacturing companies such as Eastman Kodak, Bausch and Lomb, Xerox, and General Motors/Delphi, Rochester has experienced massive industrial sector job losses and continues to experience commercial/manufacturing facility contractions and closings. The decline and 2011 bankruptcy of Kodak reduced its employment base in Rochester from about 65,000 to less than 2,500 people. Additional job losses from Bausch and Lomb after its acquisition in 2013 continue to add to the economic challenges in the City. Rochester's built environment supported a population of 332,488 in the 1950 census versus its current population of 210,745. The 121‐123 Reynolds Street property (“the Site” or “the Property”) for the proposed cleanup grant project is located in Census Tract (CT) 27. As shown on Table 1, this is a very distressed area of the City. CT 27, and adjoining CTs 64 and 65 collectively form the “Target Area”, and are located within the Mayor’s Heights neighborhood. The Target Area has a nearly 95% minority population, poverty rates of nearly 50%, and unemployment rates up to 2.5X and 4X the City and State averages, respectively. The Site has a long history of gasoline service station and automobile repair uses. The City of Rochester acquired the Property through involuntary tax foreclosure due to tax delinquency. Underground storage tanks associated with the former gasoline station were present on the Property from approximately 1936 until 2011. The City removed the tanks after petroleum contamination was encountered in soil and groundwater during excavation of a residential basement at the adjoining 125 Reynolds Street property. Requested grant funds will help offset the costs for soil and groundwater remediation to facilitate revitalization of the Property as part of an affordable housing project. 1.a.ii. Demographic Information & Indicators of Need: Table 1.

Data Type a

Target Area City of

Rochester Monroe County

New York State United States Site Adjoining CTs

Census Tract 27

Census Tract 64

Census Tract 65

Total population 1,420 2,635 1,824 210,745 749,356 19,673,174 316,515,021Minority population b 99.20% 95.70% 92.70% 63.50% 28.40% 43.20% 37.70%% Black/African American 90.80% 88.50% 76.20% 38.80% 14.50% 14.40% 12.30%Child Population (< 18 yrs.) 39.60% 31.00% 28.00% 24.10% 21.70% 21.60% 23.30%5‐yr Unemployment Rate 34.20% 26.20% 17.60% 13.80% 7.70% 8.20% 8.30%Median household income $17,065 $22,273 $18,714 $30,960 $52,553 $59,269 $53,889 % High School Graduate 66.30% 72.00% 64.70% 80.50% 90.20% 85.60% 86.70%% Bachelor’s degree 7.40% 3.90% 5.30% 23.80% 36.20% 34.20% 29.80%Poverty rate 46.90% 50.30% 43.50% 33.50% 15.20% 15.70% 15.50%Child poverty rate (< 18 yrs.) 56.10% 69.90% 50.70% 51.60% 23.00% 22.20% 21.70%Households FS/SNAP 64.50% 48.40% 72.20% 35.00% 14.70% 15.40% 13.20%Homeownership 26.40% 31.00% 13.00% 36.90% 64.20% 53.60% 63.90%Median home value $62,800 $48,600 $35,300 $76,200 $138,600 $283,400 $178,600 Land Area (square miles) c 0.15 0.25 0.18 35.78 657.21 47,126 3,531,905

(a)Unless otherwise noted, all data reflect 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5‐Yr Data; (b)Calculated by subtracting the reported % of “total white persons not Hispanic” from 100%, (c)Land area data was obtained using EJSCREEN (ejscreen.epa.gov) and U.S. Census Bureau (census.gov/quickfacts).

As shown in Table 1, the Target Area is among the most economically distressed areas in New York State (NYS). Shaded results exceed or are less than national averages, and results in bold exceed or are less than State averages (depending on the factor). In addition to significant rates of minority, poverty and unemployment, the Target Area faces higher levels of households reliant on Food Stamps




2

(FS)/Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, and substantially lower household incomes and education rates. Homeownership rates in the Target Area are less than half of Monroe County averages. 1.a.iii. Description of the Brownfields: The Site is located at 121‐123 Reynolds Street in the City of Rochester, Monroe County, New York (Monroe County Tax ID No. 120.52‐3‐18.001). The Site is in a City zoning district for low‐density residential use (R‐1) and is classified by the NYS Department of Taxation and Finance as Property Class Code 311 – Vacant Residential Land. There are four parcels adjacent to the Site. Two of the parcels are occupied by single family residences, the other two parcels are vacant residential land. The planned redevelopment for this Site is an affordable two‐family residence. The Site was formerly two separate parcels and has been in commercial and residential use since the 1870’s. The 121 Reynolds Street portion of the Site operated as a wagon repair shop from the early 1910s through the mid‐1930s; a blacksmith shop from the late 1930s through the late 1940s; a gasoline station from the late 1930s through the early 1950s and an auto repair shop from the early 1950s through the late 1980s. The 121 Reynolds Street portion became vacant in 1991. The 123 Reynolds Street parcel was a residence from the late 1880s through approximately 2010 and has been vacant land since that time. The City acquired the now condensed 0.2‐acre Site through tax foreclosure in 2010. The anticipated redevelopment of the Site with a two‐family affordable housing unit will fulfill the residential urban infill goal that was previously planned for the Site in 2011 but was interrupted by discovery of the petroleum impacts. Given the lack of use of the Property for several years, the current land use will be unaffected by the recommended remedy. While the Site use changed from commercial to residential, recent investigations have revealed that significant contamination from the Site’s historical use remains: urban fill impacted with lead and semi‐volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) are present on the north side of the Site; petroleum impacted soil is located near the former underground storage tanks (USTs) and extends to the south; and a dissolved petroleum groundwater plume extends downgradient (i.e. south) from the former UST locations on the Site. A portion of the plume likely extends off‐site to the south and east. Groundwater is situated at the overburden/fractured bedrock interface. The Site is registered with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Spill Incidents Database as Spill No. 1103833 and has petroleum, lead and SVOC concentrations in soil and groundwater that are greater than the State’s cleanup levels. The targeted area is situated almost equidistant between three of the four Brownfield Opportunity Areas (BOAs) that the City has been working on for the past 8‐11 years: Bulls Head, Lyell‐Lake‐Sate Street, and Vacuum Oil. Within these areas are more than 200 potential brownfields. 1.b.i. Welfare Impacts: As demonstrated on Table 2, the Target Area includes some of the highest concentrations of sensitive populations in the City, EPA Region and U.S. Shaded/Bolded values represent at‐risk indicators ≥90th percentile in NYS, EPA Region 2, and the U.S. (meaning, ≤10% of those populations have higher rankings for the selected variables than those living in the Target Area.) Table 2. Demographic Indicators for Target Area

Selected Variable NY State Percentile EPA Region 2 Percentile

United States Percentile

Demographic Index 98 99 99Minority Population 93 94 97Low Income Population 97 98 97Population with Less Than High School Education 89 90 91Population under 5 years of age 64 64 60




3

According to the NYS Department of Labor’s State Data Center, the Site is located within En‐Zone “AB”, one of many En‐Zones that encircle 53% of the City. En‐Zones are defined as CTs with a poverty rate of at least 20% and an unemployment rate of at least 125% of the New York State unemployment rate, or a poverty rate of at least double the rate for the county in which the tract is located (Monroe County). Based on the City's 2016 En‐Zone GIS analysis, the majority of identified brownfield sites within the City’s En‐Zones are less than one acre in size, located adjacent to or within 2000 feet of residences, and within or adjacent to the City's most disadvantaged neighborhoods. These vacant brownfield properties often become locations for drug trafficking and abuse, vandalism, arson, vagrancy, and theft. The 1,897 vacant structures in the City’s En‐Zones represent over 68% of the total City‐wide. In addition to attracting crime, these properties threaten public safety when conditions result in illegal dumping. Periodic City GIS analyses of assessed property values correlates proximity to vacant and abandoned properties with lower property values. Additionally, neighborhoods which appear to be abandoned and vacant frequently lack essential neighborhood services such as grocery stores, drug stores, and health facilities, as well as insurance offices, hardware stores and other businesses. The lack of access to fresh foods is a chronic problem in the majority of the census tracts that comprise the City’s En‐Zones. Foodlink, Rochester's non‐profit food bank, is distributing 40% more food than 10 years ago. 1.b.ii. Cumulative Environmental Issues: Table 31, below demonstrates how sensitive populations in the Target Area are exceptionally at risk of exposure to cumulative environmental impacts from soil, water, air, and other pollution sources. The Target Area falls within the top 25% of at‐risk communities in the U.S. for all variables identified, and in the top 10% for exposure to lead paint as well as proximity to Risk Management Plans (RMPs) and hazardous waste sites, and proximity to high traffic volumes. Shaded/Bolded values represent indicators ≥75th percentile in NYS, EPA Region 2, and the U.S. (meaning, ≤25% of the population have greater exposure than those living in the Target Area). Table 3. Environmental Indicators for Target Area

*NATA = National‐Scale Air Toxics Assessment; NATA is EPA's ongoing, comprehensive evaluation of air toxics and was developed to prioritize air toxics, emission sources and locations of interest for further study. NATA provides broad estimates of health risks over geographic areas. **Facilities with RMPs have increased potential for chemical spills.

1 Generated using EPA Environmental Justice Screening (EJSCREEN) Tool on 10/26/2017.

Selected Variable NY State Percentile EPA Region 2 Percentile United States Percentile

Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 76 78 80Ozone 78 80 80NATA* Diesel PM 70 73 84NATA* Air Toxics Cancer Risk 73 75 80NATA* Respiratory Hazard Index 72 75 82Traffic Proximity & Volume 85 87 92Lead Paint Indicator 76 79 90Superfund Proximity 64 64 75Risk Management Plan (RMP) Proximity** 95 94 92Hazardous Waste Proximity 87 87 91Water Discharger Proximity 86 86 85




4

En‐Zones are Lead High Risk Areas as defined by the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), indicating that these areas have a high prevalence of actual or presumed lead‐based paint hazards and property contamination. This includes both residential and commercial properties. According to City Neighborhood and Business Development (NBD) GIS data, 92.9% of all City lead inspections are performed in these Lead High Risk En‐Zone areas. This concentration of abandoned and vacant brownfield properties is not being addressed in part due to the poor real estate values and weak markets within the neighborhoods comprising the En‐Zones. For example, 624 "high risk tax delinquent brownfield" properties representing 83.5% of the total City‐wide are located within the En‐Zones (City of Rochester Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Annual Review data). Over 85% of these properties are not being addressed under the state's environmental remedial programs. This concentration of un‐remediated high risk brownfield sites in the City's challenged neighborhoods suggests environmental justice concerns that warrant focusing of federal, state and local brownfield resources. 1.b.iii. Cumulative Public Health Impacts: The presence of hundreds of brownfields, industrial closings and job losses, and challenging demographics all combine to present disproportionate threats to the health of City residents in En‐Zones. According to the University of Rochester's Environmental Health Sciences Center (UREHSC), the Years of Potential Life Lost (YPLL) is used as a metric for health disparities in Monroe County. YPLL is based on years lost at death from an expected lifespan of 75 years. According to the UREHSC there is a difference of 13 years of potential life lost in the En‐Zones when compared to Monroe County residents. Research by the UREHSC indicates that poverty, stress, and environmental exposures contribute to chronic health conditions and diseases that disproportionately affect those neighborhoods near brownfields. Health and safety risks associated with unmanaged brownfield sites include exposures to asbestos and other building contaminants like lead and PCBs. Incidents of such conditions exist at dozens of vacant brownfield sites within the City’s En‐Zones, and elevated concentrations of lead are present in soils at the Site. These conditions also pose exposure hazards to neighborhood residents, and especially children, utility workers, City operations crews, police, and fire fighters. En‐Zones are Lead High Risk Areas as defined by the NYSDOH., Blood test results show that minority and low‐income children living in rental housing remain most likely to have elevated blood lead levels. Rochester has some of the oldest housing stock in poorest condition in NYS, with 86% built before 1970. The Site is situated within CT 27 which has more than 70% renter‐occupied housing, putting residents at elevated risk of housing‐based health hazards. Eighty‐five percent of lead poisoned children are racial minorities (UREHSC). According to the UREHSC, communities living near brownfields are especially at risk for chronic diseases that disproportionately impact children, such as asthma and lead poisoning. The highest asthma hospitalization rates in Monroe County occur within En‐Zones, which at 240.6 per 10,000 is 2.7 times the statewide rate. Similarly, Rochester City School District data indicate that 14% to 15.7% of children in pre‐kindergarten through 12th grade have asthma and that this trend has increased from year to year. The State‐wide and national asthma rates for children are 11% and 9.1%, respectively, suggesting that school‐aged children in the City are at a greater risk for this disease. According to the African American Health Task Force, "the hospitalization rate for asthma in Monroe County is still more than three times greater among African Americans than among the non‐African American population2" 1.c.i. Economic Conditions: Monroe County did not demonstrate persistent poverty as defined by the percent of population living in poverty in 1990, 2000, and 2010. However, it does show an increasing percent of the County

2 https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/community/minority/county/monroe.htm




5

population living in poverty for each progressive decade. The City of Rochester, the urban core at the center of the County, has persistent and pervasive poverty. According to the Rochester Area Community Foundation (RACF), of the top 75 metro areas in the nation, Rochester has the 4th highest rate of childhood poverty and the rate of poverty is increasing3. Furthermore, among 18 comparable benchmark cities across the country, Rochester now has the highest rate, 16.2%, of Extreme Poverty, defined as people living below 50% of the federal poverty level. The RACF found that since 2014, the City of Rochester’s childhood poverty rate has increased from 46% to 50%, and its childhood poverty rate now ranks No. 1 among cities in comparably sized metro areas. Rochester has an active and successful brownfield program. The pace of municipal and private sector brownfield cleanup and redevelopment in the City is about 10 acres per year; however, it has slowed in the aftermath of the 2008‐2009 recession. Despite 25 years of brownfield cleanup and redevelopment in Rochester, there are still over 2,500 acres of brownfield properties that require assessment and possible cleanup (DEQ). Further, the number of vacant properties in Rochester has risen about 50% in the last 15 years. Rochester's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) projects a total budget gap for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 of $47.6 million. This projected gap increases to $61.4 million by FY 2023 when it represents over 10% of the total inflation adjusted City budget. Since 2013, federal aid for the City's administration of federally funded programs declined 35%. Rochester lost 4.1 % of its population between 2000 and 2015 (US Census Bureau) which when combined with the increase in abandoned properties and job loses, has depressed property valuations in many En‐Zone neighborhoods, including the Target Area. Rochester has experienced massive industrial sector job losses over many years and continues to experience facility closings. Kodak's dramatic downsizing and facility demolition program also eliminated about half of its manufacturing facilities within the City leaving millions of square feet of vacant former manufacturing space. These conditions have reduced assessed property values and led to a drop of $10 million in annual property tax revenues to the City (City Finance Department and OMB). The decline in the manufacturing base and the resulting loss of property value in the City has reduced Rochester's ability to derive local revenue to address brownfields assessment and cleanup and has increased the number of brownfield properties needing attention. There are limited funding resources available to the City or the private sector for brownfield cleanup. NYS's municipal brownfield grant program, which Rochester used extensively for 10 years, has not accepted applications for new sites since 2009. These NYS grants, totaling $10.5 million, represented approximately 40% of the City's brownfield funding (DEQ) during that period. The NYS Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA) program is not accepting applications for new projects, cutting off another funding source. These changes severely constrain Rochester's ability to finance brownfield assessment, cleanup and redevelopment. As a result, EPA grants for brownfields are becoming increasingly critical to promote brownfield cleanup and redevelopment in the City. 1.c.ii. Economic Effects of Brownfields: Rochester’s population has declined by more than 122,000 residents since the 1950s. The decline has been exacerbated by the sub‐prime mortgage and foreclosure crisis beginning in the late 2000’s and the loss of local manufacturing. The result has been the presence of large numbers of vacant residential properties throughout the City. The loss of residents has impacted neighborhood businesses, with large numbers of small business closings resulting in vacant commercial buildings. The economic costs associated with these properties has been enormous, with $1.45 million included in the 2017‐2018 City budget for demolition of 110 vacant structures, an increase of $250,000 from the prior fiscal year. To compensate for the increase in demolitions of vacant or underutilized properties, the City had to make

3 http://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/rochester/news/2016/12/9/report‐‐rochester‐no‐‐1‐in‐poverty‐‐no‐‐4‐in‐childhood‐poverty




6

concessions in its budget, including the elimination of $100,000 that had been earmarked for investigation and remediation at the Property. According to an online source, more than half of the City’s housing units are more than 75 years old. The vast majority of vacant buildings contain hazardous building materials (asbestos) that require abatement, increasing demolition costs. Surface soil at many of these properties is contaminated at levels that exceed soil cleanup standards and will result in largely undetermined soil management and disposal costs as part of any future Site reuse or redevelopment. According to a 2011 study by the City of Rochester Fire Department, the number of vacant and abandoned buildings hovered around 2,800, even though the City had demolished an average of 150‐200 units per year since 2004. The vacant buildings are a target for arsonists. Of 7,937 structure fires between 2001 and 2010, 953 (or 12.0%) occurred in vacant buildings (an average of 95 per year). Of these, 778 (or 81.6%) were attributed to arson, with the actual percentage higher as some were total losses that could not be properly investigated and which were classified as having undetermined causes. Examples include the nearby Orchard Whitney Site located within the LYLAKS BOA, and the Former Photech Imaging Site, both Brownfield sites which contained former commercial/industrial buildings that experienced multiple arson fires and which were successfully remediated by the City in part using EPA Cleanup Grant funds. Another important economic cost has been lost opportunities associated with desirable projects that would have added jobs, amenities, or tax base not coming to fruition in part because of liabilities, costs, and potential delays associated with contamination uncovered during the due diligence phase of these projects. Similarly, NYSDEC identified remedial sites (Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites, Brownfields, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, and Petroleum Spill Sites) and MCDH identified Solid Waste Disposal Sites are prevalent in many of the City’s En‐Zones resulting in lost economic opportunities on those sites and nearby parcels. Finally, there have been significant direct costs to the City associated with maintaining, as well as securing, vacant or abandoned properties, and providing services such as mowing of weeds, the clearing of snow from sidewalks adjacent to vacant or abandoned properties, the disposal of waste materials illegally dumped on these properties, and the response of police personnel to criminal activities that occur at a disproportionately high rate on these types of properties. In the budget for 2017‐2018, the City allocated $3,380 for staff to manage foreclosures, $250,000 to conduct title searches in foreclosure actions, and $787,400 to maintain vacant lots to increase the value and security of the neighborhoods. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & FEASIBILITY OF SUCCESS 2.a.i. Existing Conditions: The Site (NYSDEC Spill No. 1103833) is located at 121‐123 Reynolds Street in the City of Rochester (Monroe County Tax ID No. 120.52‐3‐18.001). A summary of historical operations at the Site is provided in Section 1.a.iii. The Site is in a City zoning district for low‐density residential use (R‐1) and is classified by the NYS Department of Taxation and Finance as Property Class Code 311 – Vacant Residential Land. There are four parcels adjacent to the Site. Two of the parcels are occupied by single family residences, the other two parcels are vacant residential land. The City acquired ownership through an involuntary foreclosure due to tax delinquency in 2010. In June 2011, petroleum impacts were encountered while excavating the basement foundation of a new home at 125 Reynolds Street, the adjacent parcel immediately to the south of 123 Reynolds Street. The City retained Day Environmental, Inc. (Day) to investigate the source of petroleum impacts, evaluate the possible presence of abandoned USTs on the Site, and perform remedial activities. Day performed a geophysical survey and excavated nine (9) test pits. Twelve soil samples were analyzed from the test pits, and four (4) 1,000‐gallon steel USTs were identified. Three of the USTs contained fluids which were sampled and analyzed. The UST samples were found to contain petroleum related volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and SVOCs and the soil samples exhibited VOC and SVOC concentrations greater than the NYSDEC Protection of Groundwater Soil Cleanup Objectives (SCOs), Residential Use SCOs, and




7

Restricted Residential Use SCOs as well as NYSDEC Commissioner’s Policy 51 (CP‐51) Soil Cleanup Levels (SCLs). Day subsequently provided engineering services for: the removal of the four USTs; excavation and off‐site disposal of petroleum impacted soils; collection, and laboratory analysis of eight (8) post excavation soil samples; and excavation backfilling including Site restoration. Soil samples collected from each tank pit excavation indicated residual VOCs above Protection of Groundwater SCOs and SCLs. In 2015, an EPA Brownfield Assessment Grant funded a Phase I ESA that identified historical wagon repair, blacksmith, gasoline dispensing and automobile repair activities at the 121 Reynolds parcel and that 123 Reynolds had always been used for residential purposes. An EPA Brownfield Assessment Grant funded Phase II ESA performed in 2016 identified: urban fill impacted with lead and SVOCs on the north side of the Site; petroleum impacted soil near the former USTs and extending to the south; and a dissolved petroleum groundwater plume extending downgradient (i.e. south) from the former UST locations on the Site. A portion of the plume likely extends off‐site to the south and east. Groundwater is situated at the overburden/fractured bedrock interface. The funds requested through this grant would help offset the costs for soil and groundwater remediation to facilitate revitalization of 121‐123 Reynolds Street. The planned redevelopment for this Site is an affordable two‐family residence. Given the lack of use of the Property for the past 7 to 26 years, the current land use will be unaffected by the recommended remedy. 2.a.ii. Proposed Cleanup Plan: EPA cleanup funding will be used to finalize the Draft Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives (ABCA; Attachment D) for the Site, prepare bid specifications, procure remedial contractors and an environmental consultant, and to execute and document the remedial activities. Community outreach and education related to brownfields and the cleanup grant project will also be completed. The proposed cleanup plan incorporates use of green or sustainable methods and materials. The ABCA is based an Opinion of Probable Cost for remediation completed by Day on behalf of the City in 2016. As described in the Draft ABCA, the proposed remedial action includes the following: • Execute a new Petroleum Spill Stipulation Agreement with NYSDEC to facilitate a comprehensive soil

removal program to remediate the Site to meet Residential SCOs and SCLs; • Excavation and off‐site disposal of shallow lead and SVOC impacted soils (urban fill) in the northern

portion of the Site; and VOC impacted soil and fractured bedrock from areas in proximity to both the former USTs and the downgradient petroleum impacted plume, located approximately 7.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). The 7.5 feet of clean fill/soil overlying the plume would be used as backfill material;

• Installation of remediation hardware for possible future delivery of a bioremediation amendment within both the petroleum source area and the plume area excavation if needed;

• Application of an in‐situ, bioremediation amendment to the open excavation of the petroleum source area and the downgradient petroleum plume excavations to promote enhanced natural attenuation of VOC impacted groundwater;

• Conducting one year of post excavation groundwater monitoring for VOCs, with the potential for conducting a second year of monitoring contingent on the first year’s results (In the event the groundwater monitoring needs to continue beyond the grant period, these services would be paid for outside the EPA grant by the City);

• Preparation of a Site Management Plan (SMP) for future Site use and re‐development; • Potential installation of a vapor sub‐slab depressurization system (SSDS) for the future home (If

redevelopment of the Site occurs after the three‐year grant period, the SSDS, if required, would be paid for outside the EPA Grant either by the City or the developer); and;

• Implementation of Institutional Controls incorporating the Site into the City Building Information System (BIS) flagging system to ensure residual impacts are properly managed in the future, as necessary.




8

Engine idle reduction practices will be utilized to minimize total emissions, neighborhood traffic and fuel costs. Engineering and institutional controls will be maintained. As described in the ABCA, climate change is not anticipated to significantly impact the effectiveness of the proposed cleanup plan. 2.a.iii. Alignment with Revitalization Plans: The City of Rochester’s Housing Policy (adopted in 2008), calls for the city to engage stakeholders and foster public/private partnerships that improve neighborhoods, create healthy real estate markets, stabilize, and enhance the tax base, and provide a broad array of housing options to address the needs of diverse households. The 2009 City of Rochester Focused Investment Strategy (FIS) initiative selected four areas of Rochester in which it targeted resources and services in an effort to revitalize these areas. The Target Area is located within one of these four areas: the Jefferson Avenue Focused Investment Strategy (FIS) Area located in the Mayor’s Heights Changing of the Scenes (COTS) neighborhood. CT 27 where the Site is located, encompasses much of the FIS Area. Adjoining neighborhoods are located within the FIS Area including: the Genesee‐Jefferson/SWAN and the Plymouth‐Exchange neighborhoods to the south, the B.E.S.T. Neighborhood United and Susan B. Anthony neighborhoods to the north, the Corn Hill neighborhood to the east, and the 19th Ward neighborhood to the west. Key recommended housing revitalization strategies for the Jefferson FIS area included identification of priority properties for housing intervention including vacant or blighted properties and offering rehabilitation grants, loans and technical assistance to landlords that are willing to invest and commit to quality management. The City contributed funds to NeighborWorks Rochester which has an investor‐owner loan program making it more attractive to investor‐owners. Another recommendation was to demolish abandoned buildings and extremely substandard rental properties. In 2010, legislation approved a mixed use and affordable housing project undertaken by Voters Block Associates, LLC, which is a partnership of the Rochester Housing Authority (RHA), Home Leasing, LLC, Spiritus Christi Church and Edgemere Development, Inc. The Voters Block Community project consisted of the redevelopment of a vacant City‐owned structure and new construction on vacant lots resulting in 92 units of affordable housing in close proximity to other City of Rochester investments in southwest Rochester, with several sites located in the Jefferson FIS Area. The planned cleanup and redevelopment of the Site not only aligns with and supports the City's Housing Policy, the Jefferson FIS, and Voters Block, LLC projects, but also the EPA area‐wide revitalization plans for the Orchard‐Whitney Brownfield site in the nearby Jay Orchard Street Area Neighborhood. This Site also fits in with the City's current effort to update its comprehensive plan, Rochester 4.0.‐ Our Neighborhoods, Our Future, which seeks to establish a cohesive vision that will serve as the road map to guide the city for the next ten years. Through the goal of stimulating brownfield site cleanup and redevelopment, this Site is aligned with Mayor Warren's goals of economic development and improving public safety in Rochester. The cleanup and redevelopment of the Site for housing in an existing residential neighborhood within one mile of downtown is also closely aligned with the City's Community Climate Action Plan. The Community Climate Action Plan identifies brownfield cleanup and reuse as a key strategy to promote sustainable and resilient development. This strategy is intended reduce transportation related greenhouse gas emissions associated with long commutes, new infrastructure construction and sprawl/greenfield development. The cleanup and redevelopment of the Site is also aligned with the City's sustainability plans and guidance which encourages brownfield reuse. 2.b.i. Task Descriptions: The scope of work will be completed with the four tasks detailed below. The City will complete the consultant procurement process in accordance with the requirements of 2 CFR 200.317‐200.326. The work will be completed through a professional services agreement. The remedial actions will be designed, observed, and documented by a professional environmental consultant. The City is requesting $200,000 of petroleum funding to complete this project. Task 1) Remedial Work Plan/Health and Safety Plan/Final Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives/Site Preparation (Total Budget: $22,684, Requested EPA funds $22,684): This task will




9

include the preparation of the required draft and final Remedial Work Plan (RWP). The RWP will include specifications for cleanup, the Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP) to ensure the public is protected, the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) to ensure the adequacy of the cleanup including confirmation sampling, and a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) to protect the workers. The Draft ABCA will be finalized and a Cleanup Decision Memo will be completed. The RWP process will include submissions and presentations to agencies, and any revisions needed for approval. The plans will be prepared and approved in accordance with the NYSDEC Spills Program guidelines and will be subject to county and state health department approvals in accordance with EPA cooperative agreement requirements. In addition, this task includes furnishing and installing fencing around the Site, and monitoring well decommissioning. The budgeted grant amount for Task 1 is for consultant costs. [OUTPUTS = RWP, CAMP, QAPP, HASP and final ABCA. Estimated Task 1 Costs = $22,684]. Task 2) Community Engagement (Total Budget: $3,645, Requested EPA funds $3,645): This task includes the preparation of the Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) for the Site and associated activities including: door to door visits to neighboring properties prior to the beginning of the project to explain cleanup efforts and to provide contacts for neighboring properties to inquire about the cleanup efforts. Additional activities will include neighborhood meetings, notices, presentations, and coordination of reuse planning. Additional tasks include maintaining the document repository at the Phyllis Wheatley Branch Library, the project web‐page4,and establishing a project complaint response process. The budgeted grant amount for Task 2 is for DEQ staff for CPP program management services. [OUTPUTS = draft and Final CPP; Complaint/Response Log; copies of meeting notes, and presentation summaries. [Estimated Task 2 Cost = $3,645] Task 3) Site Remedial Work (Total Budget: $195,976, Requested EPA funds $155,976; City Cost Share funds $40,000): This task includes: • Contractor pre‐work submittal preparation and mobilization, including implementation of soil

erosion and sediment control measures and construction entrance preparation. • Source soil characterization for waste profiling and disposal. Soil excavation, loading and backfilling;

transport and disposal of approximately 684 tons of lead and SVOC contaminated fill. Importation of 684 tons of clean fill. Laboratory testing costs. Excavation and backfill oversight.

• Soil excavation, loading and backfilling transport and disposal of approximately 228 tons of petroleum contaminated soil, and 202 tons of rock from the petroleum source area and unsaturated zone excavation. Staging and backfilling of 190 tons of soil. Dewatering tank rental. Application of 441 lbs. of oxygen release compound, remediation equipment hardware for application of oxygen release compound and traffic control services. Laboratory testing costs. Excavation and backfill oversight.

• Soil excavation and loading of petroleum contaminated soil/bedrock; loading, transport and disposal of approximately 373 tons of petroleum contaminated soil/bedrock. Importation of 320 tons of clean fill. Application of 720 lbs. of oxygen release compound, remediation equipment hardware for application of oxygen release compound. Laboratory testing costs. Excavation and backfill oversight.

• Installation of three monitoring wells. The budgeted grant amount for Task 3 is for contractor, consultant and DEQ staff programmatic costs for remedial activities and project oversight. [Outputs = removal and disposal of approximately 1,487 tons of impacted soil, treatment of impacted soil and groundwater with 1161 lbs. ORC; three (3) monitoring wells; soil, and groundwater quality evaluation; and SMP. Estimated Task 3 Cost = $195,976] Task 4) Reporting and Institutional Controls/Engineering Controls (IC/EC) (Requested EPA funds $17,695): This task includes DEQ staff and consultant services for: the preparation of the draft and final Remedial Construction Report (RCR); groundwater monitoring program performance reporting required

4 (http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589973113)




10

by the NYSDEC; and meeting EPA reporting requirements. The task will document the cleanup, ongoing operations, maintenance, and monitoring requirements and include any engineering controls and use restrictions. The City’s institutional control, the building permit flagging system, will be used for the parcel consistent with the final NYSDEC approved SMP. The budgeted grant amount for Task 4 is for consultant and DEQ staff programmatic costs for reporting and application and enforcement of IC/EC measures. [OUTPUTS = draft and Final RCR/AUL permit restriction application, and all required EPA reports. Estimated Task 4 Cost = $17,695] 2.b.ii. Budget Table:

Budget Categories

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Totals

Remedial Work Plan/HASP/ABCA/Site Preparation

Community Engagement

Site Remedial Work

Post Remediation Monitoring, Reporting and IC/EC

Personnel $1,600 $1,400 $6,800 $1,600 $11,400Fringe Benefits $872 $763 $3,706 $872 $6,213Travel $600 $0 $600 $600 $1,800Contractual $19,425 $1,282 $144,670 $14,623 $180,000Other $187 $200 $200 $0 $587Total EPA Funding $22,684 $3,645 $155,976 $17,695 $200,000 Cost Share (20% of Federal) $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $40,000 Total Budget $22,684 $3,645 $195,976 $17,695 $240,000

2.c. Ability to Leverage: City Funds Spent To Date: The City has already contributed over $24,000 in municipal funding towards securing the Site, removing four (4) USTs and 125 tons of impacted soil. The completion of the ESAs performed in order to delineate the nature and extent of contamination at the Site were performed using $59,000 in EPA Brownfield Assessment Grant funds (see Section 2.a.i for a list of completed ESAs). Additional Project Costs: The current proposed budget for this project, estimated to be $240,000 is based on sound engineering and extensive experience with similar sites. The City’s Cost share will be met by utilizing resources from the City’s Department of Environmental Services Cash Capital Allocation for brownfield investigation and cleanup. Funding for the City's share, has already been identified in the City's FY 2017 Capital Improvement Plan for this project. Additional leveraging: The City provides gap funding to sustain or create new affordable housing developments through an annual competitive RFP process, which the Housing Division coordinates. Recently completed projects include Eastman Gardens, Wedgepoint and Lake Ravine Apartments. The NBD Housing Division (NBDHD) works to promote sustainable and affordable home ownership in the City by its Home Purchase Assistance Program offering $3,000 to eligible first time home buyers. The Employer Assisted Housing Initiate offers incentives and support for home purchases in the City in partnership with local employers. The Rochester Land Bank Corporation and housing agency work with the City to rehabilitate formerly vacant single family homes and make them available to first‐time homebuyers through the HOME Rochester Program. 3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & PARTNERSHIPS: 3.a. Engaging the Community: The City of Rochester’s Housing Policy (adopted in 2008), calls for the city to engage stakeholders and foster public/private partnerships that improve neighborhoods, create healthy real estate markets, stabilize, and enhance the tax base, and provide a broad array of housing options to address the needs of diverse households. The NBDHD plays an integral role in the community with ‘Celebrate City Living’, an exciting new year‐round initiative that promotes all the great reasons to live in the City of Rochester and




11

its diverse neighborhoods through: An online resource center, neighborhood descriptions; properties for sale and rent; events, blog posts, year‐round complimentary web presence via social media on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter; an annual city‐wide housing and neighborhood information expo; plus 3‐4 community events highlighting different neighborhoods throughout the year for face‐to‐face opportunities to meet people and learn what makes Rochester such a great place to live and grow. The City has worked closely with the Southwest Common Council (SWCC) which represents 13 established neighborhood groups, and more than 450 residents, students, and other affected community members to maintain dialog regarding future redevelopment options at the Site. At the SWCC meeting on October 19, 2017 the City presented information on the Grant application, discussed the Draft ABCA and provided an opportunity for comments. An informational summary was also sent to affected property owners, businesses, and community groups. Information regarding this cleanup application and the ABCA was posted on the City's web page5. Additionally, on October 26, 2017, SWCC distributed information about the Project and the cleanup grant proposal via email to 450+ recipients on its mailing list. The demographics of the target community indicates English as the primary language; however, the City's web domain is equipped for translation to several alternative languages. If additional language translation or translation for the visually impaired is necessary, the City will make a good faith effort to meet the needs of all involved community participants. The City will schedule at least one public kick‐off meeting to inform area residents and other stakeholders about the project. The City will provide the community with background information on the project, solicit input regarding health and welfare issues and plans for redeveloping the Site. The MCDH has committed to providing technical assistance. Letters of support for the City's cleanup project were received from several neighborhood entities, including: Southwest Common Council and D’Allessandro House Buyers, and the Monroe County Health Department. All information generated during the project will be shared through periodic meetings and regularly posted updates on the website and other social media networks. A public document repository for citizen use has already been established at the City's Phyllis Wheatley Library Branch. A copy of the meeting minutes which included an attendee list, and a summary of the City's project and proposal, and support letters are included in Attachment B. As the project progresses, the Citizen Participation Plan will outline the continued engagement of the community and the neighborhood. In addition to meetings, a City representative will go door to door to neighbors to inform them about the project’s purpose, the activities that will take place, the schedule and how to reach the city and their contractors should they have any issues with the project. 3.b.i Local/State/Tribal Environmental Authority: The City will work closely with NYSDEC and MCDH during cleanup planning and implementation of remedial activities. The County Waste Site Advisory committee which includes NYSDEC, NYSDOH, MCDH, local sewer and environmental management agencies will review the project. The cleanup project will be completed under a Stipulation Agreement with the NYSDEC. Under the Petroleum Spills Program, the NYSDEC reviews all work plans, inspects site work, and routinely makes referrals to and consults with the MCDH on work planning, site investigations, remedy selection, cleanups, and reporting. After Site cleanup is completed and prior to redevelopment, institutional controls will be established. The City institutional control system, the Building Permit Flagging System (BPFS), will be initiated once a SMP is prepared as part of the Site closure. This institutional control program has been used since 1996 and its use has become standard practice for City brownfield projects. 3b.ii Other Governmental Partnerships As noted above the City will work closely with the NYSDEC and NYSDOH. During the project the NYSDEC will review project deliverables and provide technical assistance on the cleanup, cleanup report, and

5 http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589973113




12

institutional controls. NYSDOH will collaborate with the NYSDEC in the review of any sub‐slab depressurization system (SSDS) design approvals. A formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) exists between the MCDH and the NYSDEC regarding waste site information and decision making. The MCDH issued a letter of support for this project. As the Site moves from cleanup to redevelopment, other agencies may become involved in financing and approving projects including Monroe County Planning and Development, the County of Monroe Industrial Development Agency, the Rochester Economic Development Corporation, NYS Empire State Development, and the Rochester Land Bank Corp. Housing projects on brownfield sites can involve US HUD and the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal in both the site assessment and project financing phases. Monroe County Waste Site Advisory Committee For 30 years, the City has participated on the MCDH Waste Site Advisory Committee (WSAC), which was established by the MOA between the MCDH and the NYSDEC regarding waste site information and decision making. The NYSDOH also actively participates in the WSAC. The WSAC reviews the status of all brownfield projects in the City. 3.c.i Community Organization Descriptions & Roles: The City has partnered with the SWCC and their 450 constituents to inform the local community about the plans to remediate and redevelop the Site. This partnership has included the October 19, 2017 presentation at SWCC’s regularly scheduled monthly meeting at which the EPA Cleanup Grant application and redevelopment plans were discussed with neighbors of the project. This was followed up by the distribution of the meeting presentation summary to SWCC’s 450 members via e‐mail on October 26, 2017. SWCC has provided a letter of support indicating they will continue to support the project and provide an opportunity to hold future presentations on the project at their monthly meetings. Rochester Southwest Common Council (SWCC) The planning and advocacy body for Rochester's SouthWest Quadrant, Location19.org is a primary communication vehicle for the SWCC, which meets the 3rd Thursday of every month at 6:00pm at the Phillis Wheatley Library. These are open meetings and anyone is welcome to attend. Together, the SWCC and Location19.org provide a forum for residents to work together in order to improve the quality of life in the Southwest Quadrant. D’Allessandro House Buyers (DHB) is a locally owned real estate firm that buys, renovates, rents and sells properties in the Rochester area and surrounding neighborhoods. Target renters are typically students attending the University of Rochester and the Rochester Institute of Technology. The company states that “they enjoy making our units a beautiful place where our residents love to live. We strive to rise above our resident’s expectations. And we are dedicated making the neighborhoods where we operate better for everyone living and working there!” DHB will offer their technical assistance with development of the Property for residential use. 3.c.ii Letters of Commitment: Letters of support and affirmation from each of the key community organizations that will collaborate with the City are attached to this proposal (Attachment C). 3.d. Partnerships with Workforce Development Programs: In 2016 Rochester successfully secured a $200,000 EPA Brownfield Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training (EWDJT) grant to help fund The Rochester Environmental Job (REJob) program, committed to training up to 60 students over a two‐year period. During 2017, the first group of 28 students graduated from the program and were successfully placed in related positions upon graduation. During 2018, another 30 students will be accepted into the program. The students will receive training in asbestos abatement, hazardous waste site cleanup, and general construction fields. The City DEQ has established a hiring preference for consultants and contractors that hire REJob graduates and will look for opportunities to get these students involved with the implementation of this brownfield project.




13

4. PROJECT BENEFITS: 4.a. Welfare, Environmental & Public Health Benefits: Welfare Benefits: The project will prioritize development of affordable quality housing to help address existing home shortages and reduce cost burdening of homeowners/renters. This also supports the City’s goal to reduce residential and income segregation by providing low‐income housing options. By removing barriers to the productive reuse of vacant and blighted properties, the cleanup project will support increased access to jobs, community services and retail within walking distance of low‐income neighborhoods (something of critical importance in the Southwest Quadrant of Rochester). Creating accessible job centers and attracting new employers will reduce the number of discouraged workers and increase workforce participation. Prioritizing employment opportunities that meet the needs and skills of Target Area residents will also help reduce disproportionate unemployment and poverty levels among Black and Hispanic populations. This will create a positive feedback loop that increases household income, supports financial independence, and decreases adverse impacts associated with poverty. Environmental Benefits: Cleanup activities will identify and mitigate soil and groundwater contamination. This will prevent vertical migration of contaminants to shallow groundwater and migration of contaminants off‐site via stormwater runoff. Removal of contaminants from groundwater will improve water quality by reducing contamination entering the Genesee River. Cleanup will also improve air quality by removing VOCs that pose potential vapor intrusion and indoor air threats, both on and off‐site. These threats will be mitigated by implementing this cleanup plan and if necessary, by the installation of a sub‐slab vapor suppression system during redevelopment. Revitalizing the Site within downtown Rochester will also serve as a highly effective vehicle emission‐reduction tool by eliminating sprawl and decreasing traffic volume. Public Health Benefits: The health impacts discussed in Section 1.b.iii will be addressed as contaminants are remediated from soil and groundwater. Likewise, by creating new housing stock, the City can begin to replace the oldest building stock and address structural insufficiencies which will reduce exposure to sources of airborne particulates (lead and asbestos) and reduce radon intrusion, thereby reducing associated health impacts (lead‐poisoning and respiratory cancers). Promoting infill development that reduces vehicles miles traveled and urban heat island effects will improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gases that compromise respiratory health. Furthermore, increasing access to goods/services and pedestrian connectivity to key areas as well as prioritizing infill development will provide additional time for exercise, improving quality of life (mental and physical health). Furthermore, using a robust community outreach program, the cleanup project will improve public awareness of brownfields and associated health risks – especially important in low‐income neighborhoods where residents have likely grown accustomed to brownfields and may not regard them as dangerous. 4.b. Economic & Community Benefits: Job Creation: Returning urban brownfields to productive residential use aligns with regional goals to prioritize employment opportunities in and around areas with large populations of un‐ and under‐employed persons. Reduced Maintenance Costs: As noted in Section 1.c.i, the City allocated $3,380 for staff to manage foreclosures, and $787,400 to maintain vacant lots. By redeveloping a vacant residential lot, the City will reduce these expenditures and instead expand the tax base for the City and County. Collectively these reductions can be used to fund other important City services that are vital to economic vibrant communities such as the Home Purchase Assistance Program (see 2.c). These revenues are critical for supporting a healthy municipal fund. Increased Property Values: Vacant properties are creating a blighting influence and are also impacting the real estate market by dragging down neighboring property values and making neighboring properties harder to insure. Facilitating redevelopment of blighted properties and corridors that define a neighborhood will improve




14

surrounding property values and the ability of homeowners to generate wealth through equity. This will help close the gap between median homes values in the Target Areas which are ~20% and ~50% lower than the rest of the City and County, respectively (see Section 1.a.ii). Affordable Housing: Even though Rochester is frequently identified as an affordable place to live, half of all renter households are paying more than 30% of their income for rent. Newer rental units are unaffordable to many households unless the units are subsidized or the household has a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher. Home ownership rates are 26% in CT27 where the Site is located. Redevelopment of this Property will provide affordable housing to low income families. In turn, this will stabilize the current property values in the neighborhood, and expand the tax base. 5. PROGRAMMATIC CAPABILITY & PAST PERFORMANCE: 5.a. Audit Findings: Rochester has an established grant monitoring and audit process and has not received any adverse audit findings as indicated in its 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 5.b. Programmatic Capability: DEQ and NBD have successfully managed 21 EPA brownfield assessment, cleanup, RLF, and area‐wide planning grants since 1995. The DEQ is also now managing the City's EPA Brownfield EWDJT Grant program. The City’s brownfield coordinator has 24 years of experience and has been with the DEQ since 1993. Collectively DEQ staff have over 100 years of experience in managing brownfield assessments and cleanups for a broad range of redevelopment projects. The DEQ includes four full‐time, degreed, environmental professionals, a full‐time grants/budget financial coordinator, one full‐time energy and sustainability analyst, one full‐time program development specialist and one part‐time economic development specialist. The grants/budget coordinator has 15 years of experience with EPA Grant compliance including quarterly and MWBE reporting, ACRES reporting, consultant contract, and Cooperative Agreement administration and payments for over 20 EPA Grants. DEQ has managed several hundred environmental site assessment projects and several dozen cleanup projects covering nearly 400 acres. DEQ’s permit‐based environmental institutional control system currently tracks 223 parcels in the City. DEQ has an established system for hiring qualified environmental professionals for investigation, compliance, and cleanup services and is experienced in procuring professional environmental consulting services under EPA’s brownfield Cooperative Agreement procurement requirements. RFP drafts must be approved prior to advertisement by the Division Manager, who serves as the Grant Project Director. Proposals received by the City are reviewed, rated using quantitative rating criteria, and ranked. Proposed fees are carefully analyzed and compared. If needed, interviews are held prior to selection. Once consultants are selected, City Council authorization is required prior to executing professional service agreements. DEQ completes the process from RFP issuance to execution of consulting services agreements in about four months. In 2013, the City established the Office of Energy and Sustainability within the DEQ which advances innovative ecologically sustainable operations, policies and practices, and climate action, mitigation, and resiliency measures. These will be factored into the procurement process. 5.c. Measuring Environmental Results: Anticipated Outputs/Outcomes: The mechanism for tracking progress, measures of success, outputs and outcomes associated with the EPA Brownfield Cleanup Grant Program is well established. Each project is tracked individually through a database and milestone completion dates are monitored. EPA site approvals, consultant proposals, work plans, and reports are all tracked and reported in quarterly progress reports and ACRES. The grants coordinator tracks data on the number of sites and acres remediated, leveraged investment, and where applicable subsequent sites/acres remediated and developed, as well as jobs created and retained. 5.d.i. Currently or Has Ever Received an EPA Brownfields Grant: Rochester has received prior EPA Brownfield Grant funding. Current activity includes:




15

CATEGORY/ SITE

EPA FUNDING/ TYPE

Announce Year (FY) USE OF FUNDS

BALANCE OF

FUNDING

ESTIMATED Completion

BF Cleanup $200,000 Pet. Substance 2013

Cleanup at 937‐941 Genesee Street in the Brooks Landing Redevelopment

Project Area 0 9/30/2017

Community Wide Assessment

$200,000 Pet. Substance 2014 CBAP/ Building Permit Flagging System

(BPFS) $19,800 9/30/2018

Area‐Wide Planning $200,000 2015 Develop an area‐wide plan for the

Orchard‐Whitney brownfield site in the Jay Orchard Street Area Neighborhood

$1,200 6/30/18

Job Training Grant $200,000 2016 Job training $158,500 9/30/19Brownfield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund $1,030,661 2016 Loans/Subgrants: 226,000, $163,000,

$111,000 and $115,000 $15,661 9/30/2018

5.d.i.1. Accomplishments: Rochester has successfully completed nine (9) EPA funded cleanup projects totaling 24 acres and is in the process of redeveloping five of these sites. Previous EPA Grant funding for the Brownfield Assistance Program (BAP) has resulted in the investigation of over 92 acres of brownfields at 69 sites by businesses and developers. Redevelopment investment of over $72 million dollars has occurred at BAP assisted sites. This investment lead to the retention of 933 jobs. In addition, 669 new jobs are projected to be created, and 400 construction jobs. Rochester's EPA Grant funded cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) has made three loans and one subgrant to successfully complete cleanup and redevelopment projects worth more than $1.15 million, 936 in temporary construction jobs, 412 new permanent jobs, and 225 retained jobs. Loan repayments have been timely and without issue. The DEQ has reported progress and successes directly to its EPA Region 2 project manager, through accurate quarterly and ACRES reporting. To date, the majority of the funding for these agreements, 93%, has been used. 5.d.i.2. Compliance with Grant Requirements: Rochester has consistently met its work plan and cooperative agreement requirements, as well ensured timely achievement of results through effective management of project consultants, budgets, and schedules. The grants/budget coordinator monitors compliance with cooperative agreements, work plans financial budgets, environmental outputs, and deliverables, and helps assemble data. Site approval requests were submitted on a timely basis. Rochester complies with competitive procurement standards in 2 CFR200.317‐326 and all subaward/subgrant requirements. Actual work plan outputs, schedules, and key results are compared against work plan estimates and reported on a timely basis. Quarterly progress reporting, reporting measures and annual financial reports for the existing EPA assessment and cleanup grants are up to date and have been made in a timely manner. Annual financial reporting has been performed. The City's quarterly reporting routinely links progress toward achieving grant output goals, for example, numbers of site assessments completed, to actual performance. The City has communicated progress and accomplishments to both its EPA Region 2 Project Officer as well as through the EPA ACRES program as required. Several parameters are calculated including program demand, efficiency, costs, and results which are tracked and reported to EPA. Rochester's performance, including the completion of EPA funded cleanup projects and active, successful use of the BAP by the private sector, demonstrates that it is achieving the results expected. DEQ completed and closed two EPA cleanup grants in February 2014 and February 2015. The total remaining balance for both grants was $3,958. The majority of the balance was due to lower than expected cleanup costs for a project which also received grant support from the NYSDEC. Another EPA cleanup project, 937‐941 Genesee Street, is being closed this fall (2017) by NYSDEC.

NARRATIVE PROPOSAL ATTACHMENTS

DHBDevelopment753GeneseeStRochesterNY14611JaneMHForbesCityofRochesterDivisionofEnvironmentalQuality30ChurchStRoom300BRochesterNY14614Jane:Pleaseacceptthisletterasmyformalsupportofanyefforttocleanupthesiteat123-121ReynoldsSt.Theareasurroundingthispropertycontinuestoimprove.Removingthisobstaclewillhelptheprogresscontinueandhopefullyaccelerate.PleaseletmeknowifthereisanythingIcandotohelpthispursuit.Thanks,JoeD’Alessandro

Department of Public Health Monroe County, New York

Cheryl Dinolfo Michael D. Mendoza, MD, MPH, MS County Executive Commissioner of Public Health

Division of Environmental Health

111 Westfall Road • Room 910 • Rochester, New York 14620 Phone: (585)753-5060 • www.monroecounty.gov

November 13, 2017

Joseph Biondolillo Associate Environmental Specialist Division of Environmental Quality City Hall, Room 300B 30 Church Street, Rochester, NY 14614 Re: 121‐123 Reynolds St, Rochester Mr. Biondolillo, We are aware of the challenges that the City of Rochester faces remediating site of the former gasoline service station located at 121‐123 Reynolds St. To date, the work completed to remove the underground storage tanks and to dispose of a portion of the contaminated soil has been a great start to the remediation for this site. However, it seems that the Phase II ESA for the site identifies additional petroleum contamination of the soil and the groundwater that needs to be cleaned up. You have the full support of the Monroe County Department of Public Health in your grant application to the USEPA to continue efforts to remediate this site. It will be a great benefit to the community to allow the former gasoline service station site to contain a residential development consistent with the City’s current zoning. Thank you for your on‐going remediation efforts. Sincerely,

Wade Silkworth, P.E. Interim Manager of Environmental Health

THRESHOLD CRITERIA RESPONSES ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT C – 121 -123 Reynolds Street

THRESHOLD CRITERIA FOR BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP GRANTS

1. Applicant Eligibility The City of Rochester (City), New York is a “general purpose unit of local government” as that term is defined under 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 200.64 and therefore meets the applicant eligibility requirements.

2. Site Ownership

The City is the sole owner of the property. The title is fee simple. The parcels forming the site were acquired through tax foreclosure by the City on January 29, 2008.

3. Basic Site Information

(a) Name of Site: 121-123 Reynolds Street (b) Site Address: 121-123 Reynolds Street, Rochester, New York, 14608 (c) Current Owner: City of Rochester (d) If not the current owner, the date you plan to acquire ownership of the site:

Not applicable, applicant is the owner of the property.

The Site was formerly two separate tax parcels. When the City acquired the Site through tax foreclosure the parcels were combined into a single approximate 0.2-acre parcel. The Site is currently vacant land with residential development planned by the City as the future use. At the time of acquisition the former northern parcel (121 Reynolds Street) was vacant land while the southern parcel (then assigned an address of 123 Reynolds Street) contained a single-family residence. Both parcels are presently vacant, grassy lots. The Site is zone R-1 with an NYS property classification of 311, residential land.

4. Status and History of Contamination at the Site

Identify:

(a) Whether this site is contaminated by petroleum or hazardous substances: Petroleum

(b) The operational history and current use(s) of the site: Historical uses of the northern parcel include a retail gasoline station, wagon and automobile repair operations. Testing conducted as part of a Phase II ESA documents that impacts to soil and groundwater are predominately associated with petroleum products. Four underground storage tanks (USTs) associated with the former retail gasoline station were present on the property from approximately 1938 until 2011 when the City removed them. Based on sampling of the UST contents, petroleum products included medium weight total petroleum hydrocarbons [TPH] (most closely related to kerosene) and heavy weight TPH most closely related to lube oil.

Based information presented in the Phase I ESA conducted in 2015 for the Site, historical uses of the Property are listed below:

121 Reynolds Street Historical Use(s)

1875 to at least 1888 Church

By 1892 School

By 1900 Church

By 1912 to 1933/34 Wagon repair

By 1938 to at least 1948 Retail gasoline station & blacksmith

By 1948 to at least 1953 Retail gasoline station

By 1953 to 1988 Automobile repair

1991 Vacant land

123 Reynolds Street Historical Use(s)

By 1888 until ~2010 Residential dwelling

2010 Vacant land

(c) Environmental concerns, if known, at the site:

A retail gasoline station operated on the northern portion of the property from at least 1938 through 1978. Four USTs used to store petroleum products were removed in 2011 under ownership of the City after petroleum contaminated soil was encountered during excavation on the southern portion of the property for a planned residential development.

(d) How the site became contaminated, and to the extent possible, describe the nature and extent of the contamination: The site became contaminated through the operation of a retail gasoline station on the northern parcel (121 Reynolds Street) from at least 1938 through 1978. Four USTs associated with the former retail gasoline station were removed in 2011. The Site was reported to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and assigned Spill #1103833 Prior to UST removal in 2011, nine test pits were completed at the site and soil samples from each of the test pits were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis. The analytical data indicated that petroleum related volatile organic compounds (VOCs), acetone, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and lead were present in soil at concentrations that were greater than the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Protection of Groundwater Soil Cleanup Objectives (SCOs) and/or Restricted Residential SCOs. After removal of the four USTs, a limited remedial excavation was performed in the UST area that removed soil to the top of the bedrock surface (encountered ~10 feet below ground surface). Approximately 125 tons of impacted soil at the former UST locations was removed and disposed of at a landfill. Confirmatory soil samples collected from the side-walls of the excavation contained VOCs at concentrations greater than the Protection of Groundwater SCOs. Based on the results of the EPA funded Phase II ESA performed in 2016, a dissolved plume of TPH is generally present in the downgradient direction (i.e. south) from the former UST locations and predominately located on the Site, however a portion of the plume likely extends off-site to the south and east. An “Opinion of Probable Cost for Remediation” was prepared for the site in April 2016 which outlined the cost for proposed remedial activities at the Site. A supplemental Phase II ESA completed in April 2017 refined the extent of the petroleum contaminated soil.

5. Brownfields Site Definition

Affirm that the site is: (a) Not listed or proposed for listing on the National Priorities List.

The site is not currently, nor has it ever been listed or proposed for listing on the National Priorities List.

(b) Not subject to unilateral administrative orders, court orders, administrative orders on consent, or judicial consent decrees issued to or entered into by parties under CERCLA.

The City entered into a Stipulation Agreement with the New York State Department of Environmental Conversation (NYSDEC) for the Site investigation activities only; there was

no commitment or obligation on the part of the City to clean-up the Site. The City was not subject to unilateral administrative orders, court orders, administrative orders on consent, or judicial consent decrees issued to or entered into by parties under CERCLA for the cleanup of the Site.

(c) Not subject to the jurisdiction, custody, or control of the U.S. government.

The site is not currently, nor has it ever been subject to the jurisdiction, custody or control of the United States Government.

6. Environmental Assessment Required for Cleanup Proposals

In June 2011, petroleum impacts were encountered while excavating a basement foundation of a new home at 125 Reynolds Street, an adjacent parcel. The City retained DAY Environmental, Inc. to perform a geophysical survey, excavate nine test pits, and collect 12 soil samples. Four USTs were found, of which three contained petroleum related VOCs and SVOCs. The tanks and their contents were removed and disposed of along with 125 tons of petroleum contaminated soil. A December 2011 Data Package and Environmental Assessment and Remediation Services report was prepared and submitted to the NYSDEC. The site was reported to NYSDEC and assigned Spill #1103833. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), Phase II ESA, and Supplemental Phase II ESA were completed for the property by DAY Environmental, Inc. on April 29, 2015, January 2016, and April 2017, respectively. With the exception of the December 2011 Data Package, all assessments were funded by an FY2011 EPA Brownfield Assessment Grant (Cooperative Agreement BF97207800). The site was assigned #177841 in the EPA ACRES.

7. Enforcement or Other Actions

The City entered into a Stipulation Agreement with the NYSDEC for the Site investigation activities only; there was no commitment or obligation on the part of the City to clean-up the Site. No enforcement actions are known or anticipated for cleanup of this brownfield site. There have been no inquiries, or orders from federal, state, or local government entities that the applicant is aware of regarding the responsibility of any party (including the applicant) for the contamination, or hazardous substances at the site, including any liens.

8. Sites Requiring a Property-Specific Determination

The subject property does not require a property-specific determination in order to be eligible for funding.

9. Site Eligibility and Property Ownership Eligibility

(b) Property Ownership Eligibility – Petroleum Sites (1) Information Required for a Petroleum Site Eligibility Determination

a. Current and Immediate Past Owners: City of Rochester (2008 – present) Tillman, Gregory (1997 – 2008)

b. Acquisition of Site: Through involuntary tax foreclosure in 2008. c. No Responsible Party for the Site: The immediate past owner was tax delinquent

at the time of foreclosure by the City and therefore may not be a considered a financially viable party.

d. Cleanup Up by a Person Not Potentially Liable: The City has not dispensed or disposed of petroleum or petroleum products at the property, nor has the City exacerbated the existing petroleum contamination.

e. Relatively Low Risk: The nature and extent of petroleum contaminations has been

delineated and is predominantly located on the site; however, some low concentrations of petroleum contamination likely extends offsite to the south and east.

f. Judgements, Orders or Third Party Suits: No responsible party is identified for the site through court judgements or administrative order, enforcement action, citizen suit contribution action or third-party claim.

g. Subject to RCRA: The site is not subject to any order under Section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

h. Financial Viability for Responsible Parties: The immediate past owner was tax delinquent at the time of foreclosure by the City and therefore may not be considered a financially viable party.

10. Cleanup Authority and Oversight Structure

(a) Describe how you will oversee the cleanup at the Site

The City will execute a stipulation agreement with the NYSDEC under the Agency’s Spills Program and perform all cleanup activities under NYSDEC oversight. Additionally, the City will assign a senior environmental staff person to manage and oversee the environmental consulting firm selected to perform the work. Remedial services will be performed through a professional services agreement and will be procured using an open competitive selection process in accordance with NYS General Municipal Law and 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.326. In accordance with standard City brownfield cleanup procedures, the City project manager will coordinate the review and approval process for the remedial action with the Monroe County Department of Health (MCDH) and the NYSDEC. Citizen participation activities and involvement will be based on a Citizen Participation Plan (CPP). The City project manager will carefully coordinate site reuse plans with remedial work plan development and site remediation actives.

(b) Cleanup ….relevant property(ies).

Although access to neighboring properties is not anticipated remedial actions will be performed within the property boundary. The applicant will follow its general practice of advising adjoining property owners of potential impacts of the remedial project and discuss the potential for the need for access before any work begins. Should property access agreements be needed the applicant will negotiate mutually acceptable terms including restoration of any damaged property.

11. Community Notification

Attach to the proposal: (a) A copy of the draft ABCA: A Draft ABCA is attached. (b) A copy of the ad (or equivalent) that demonstrates notification to the public and solicitation for

comments on the proposal(s);

The City has worked closely with the Southwest Common Council (SWCC) which represents 13 established neighborhood groups, residents, students, and other affected community members to maintain an open dialog regarding future redevelopment options at the Site. On October 26, 2017, the SWCC distributed information about the Project and the cleanup grant proposal via email to 450+ recipients on its mailing list. In addition, at the SWCC meeting on October 19, 2017 the City presented information on the Grant application, discussed the Draft ABCA and provided an opportunity for comments. The Draft ABCA was posted on the City website for public review and comment (http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589973113). A copy of the email and information distributed to the SWCC members is included as Attachment E.

(c) The comments or a summary of the comments received;

A presentation was given by the City on October 19, 2017 at a Southwest Common Council (SWCC) meeting. One question was posed at the meeting asking why this site was selected? It was explained at the meeting that a two-family home was previously proposed to be constructed on this Site as part of a larger residential infill project. However, petroleum contamination was discovered that prevented development of the Site. Following the removal of four underground petroleum storage tanks and a limited amount of contaminated soil, a series of investigations were performed using USEPA Brownfield Grant funds. Therefore, the City is trying to cleanup this Site to allow the construction of the originally proposed residence.

(d) Your response to the public comments;

With the exception of one comment received at the public meeting, for which a response is provided above, no other public comments were received.

(e) Meeting notes or summary from the public meeting(s).

A copy of the presentation summary which was distributed to the 450 members of SWCC after the meeting via e-mail is attached. A copy of the sign-in sheet from the SWCC is also attached.

12. Statutory Cost Share

(a) Demonstrate how you will meet the required cost share, including the sources of the funding or services, as required for this cleanup grant.

The applicant currently plans to meet the required cost share component from the City of Rochester’s DES FY 2017 debt allocation. City DEQ staff will provide the labor to manage and implement the grant. Other sources may be utilized including private and public funds as available.

(b) If you are requesting a hardship waiver of the cost share, provide an explanation for the basis of your request as part of your proposal

The applicant is not requesting a hardship waiver.

ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES (ABCA) 121-123 Reynolds Street Rochester, New York NYSDEC Spill No. 1103833

Prepared for:

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 Office 290 Broadway, 18th Floor New York, New York 10007-1866

Prepared on Behalf of: City of Rochester 30 Church Street, Suite 300B Rochester, New York 14614 Contact: Jane Forbes

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 61 Commercial Street Rochester, New York 14614

Project No: 190500972

November 2, 2017

ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES (ABCA) 121-123 REYNOLDS STREET ROCHESTER, NEW YORK NYSDEC SPILL NO. 1103833

Revision Description Author Quality Check Independent Review


This document entitled ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES (ABCA)121-123 Reynolds Street Rochester, New York NYSDEC Spill No. 1103833 was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of City of Rochester, New York (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document.

Prepared by

Mark Bailey, EIT

Reviewed by

Kevin Ignaszak, PE

Approved by

Michael Storonsky


Executive Summary November 2, 2017

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. I

ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................... II

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 1.1 1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY ..................................................................................... 1.1 1.2 PROPOSED FUTURE USE OF SITE....................................................................................... 1.1 1.3 PURPOSE AND CONTENT OF REPORT ............................................................................ 1.1

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND................................................................................ 2.4 2.1 DECEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIATION

SERVICES 121 AND 123 REYNOLDS STREET .................................................................... 2.4 2.2 APRIL 2015 PHASE I ESA OF THE 121-123 REYNOLDS STREET SITE ................................ 2.5 2.3 JANUARY 2016 PHASE II ESA OF THE 121-123 REYNOLDS STREET SITE ........................ 2.5 2.4 APRIL 2016 OPC FOR REMEDIATION OF THE 121-123 REYNOLDS STREET SITE .......... 2.6 2.5 JANUARY 2017 SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ESA OF THE 121-123 REYNOLDS

STREET SITE .......................................................................................................................... 2.6

3.0 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND CLEANUP STANDARDS ........................................... 3.7 3.1 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ...................................................................................................... 3.7 3.2 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS ............................... 3.7 3.3 CLEANUP OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY ........................................................................... 3.8

4.0 BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES FOR THE SITE .................................................. 4.9 4.1 ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION/MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION (MNA) ........... 4.9 4.2 ALTERNATIVE B: EXCAVATION OF IMPACTED SOILS AND WEATHERED

BEDROCK ........................................................................................................................... 4.9 4.3 ALTERNATIVE C: EXCAVATION OF IMPACTED SOILS AND WEATHERED

BEDROCK W/ ENHANCED MNA ................................................................................... 4.10

5.0 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES ................................................................ 5.11 5.1 ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION/MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION (MNA) ......... 5.11 5.2 ALTERNATIVE B: EXCAVATION OF IMPACTED SOILS AND WEATHERED

BEDROCK ......................................................................................................................... 5.11 5.3 ALTERNATIVE C: EXCAVATION OF IMPACTED SOILS AND WEATHERED

BEDROCK W/ ENHANCED MNA ................................................................................... 5.12

6.0 RECOMMENDED CLEANUP ALTERNATIVE .................................................................. 6.13

7.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 7.14



LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES APPENDIX A: TABLES .............................................................................................................. A.1

TABLE 1 – OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS FOR REMEDIATION .................................. A.2 APPENDIX B: FIGURES ............................................................................................................. B.3

FIGURE 1 – SITE LOCATION MAP ..................................................................................... B.4 FIGURE 2 – SITE PLAN WITH INTERPOLATED PEAK PID READINGS ON-SITE AND

IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY .............................................................................. B.5 FIGURE 3 – SITE PLAN WITH INTERPOLATED TOTAL VOCS MEASURED IN SOIL

SAMPLES ........................................................................................................... B.6 FIGURE 4 – SITE PLAN WITH INTERPOLATED PEAK PID READINGS AND

REMEDIAL COMPONENTS ............................................................................. B.7 FIGURE 5 - SITE PLAN WITH INTERPOLATED TOTAL VOCS DETECTED IN

ANALYTICAL LABORTAORY SOIL SAMPLES AND REMEDIAL COMPONENTS ................................................................................................ B.8



bm u:\190500972\05_report_deliv\deliverables\reports\abca\rpt_190500972_epa_abca_121_123 reynolds st_20171031.docx i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents an Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives (ABCA) for the remediation of soil, weathered bedrock and groundwater impacts at 121-123 Reynolds Street, Rochester, NY (Site), as shown on Figure 1. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) assigned Spill No. 1103833 to the Site. Three remediation alternatives were retained following a preliminary screen of applicable remedial methods and technologies. Alternative A is the no action alternative and includes monitored natural attenuation (MNA) with an assumed duration of 30 years. Alternative B includes the excavation and off-Site disposal of impacted material from three areas on the Site and installation of remediation infrastructure. Alternative C includes all components of Alternative B, plus the direct application of a bioremediation amendment to the open excavations of the downgradient petroleum plume and the petroleum source area. Alternatives B and C both include one year of post-excavation groundwater monitoring, with the potential for conducting a second year of monitoring contingent on the first year’s results. Based on the extent of the impacted areas, the contaminants of concern, and the affected media, the recommended remedial approach is Alternative C.


Abbreviations November 2, 2017

bm u:\190500972\05_report_deliv\deliverables\reports\abca\rpt_190500972_epa_abca_121_123 reynolds st_20171031.docx ii

ABBREVIATIONS

ABCA

ARARs

CAMP

HASP

MNA

NYCRR

NYSDEC

NYSDOH

OPC

RSCO

SCGs

SCL

SCO

SMP

SSDS

SVOC

TOGS

UST

VOC

Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

Community Air Monitoring Plan

Health and Safety Plan

Monitored Natural Attenuation

New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

New York State Department of Health

Opinion of Probable Cost

Remedial Site Cleanup Objective

Site Standards, Criteria and Guidelines

Soil Cleanup Level

Soil Cleanup Objective

Site Management Plan

Sub-slab Depressurization System

Semi-Volatile Organic Compound

Technical & Operational Guidance Series

Underground Storage Tank

Volatile Organic Compound


Introduction and Background November 2, 2017

bm u:\190500972\05_report_deliv\deliverables\reports\abca\rpt_190500972_epa_abca_121_123 reynolds st_20171031.docx 1.1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY

The Site (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Spill No. 1103833) is located at 121-123 Reynolds Street (Site) in the City of Rochester (City), Monroe County, New York (Monroe County Tax ID No. 120.52-3-18.001). A Site Location Map is included as Figure 1. The 121 Reynolds Street portion of the Site operated as a wagon repair shop from the early 1910s through the mid-1930s; a gasoline station and blacksmith shop from the mid-1930s through the late 1940s; a gasoline station from the late 1930s through the early 1950s and an auto repair shop from the early 1950s through the late 1980s. The 121 Reynolds Street portion became vacant in 1991. The 123 Reynolds Street portion of the Site was residential from the late 1880s through approximately 2010 and has been vacant land since that time.

The City acquired ownership through involuntary take due to tax delinquency in 2010. The Site is in a City zoning district for low-density residential use (R-1) and is classified by the NYS Department of Taxation and Finance as property class 311 – Vacant Residential Land. There are four parcels adjacent to the Site. Two of the parcels are occupied by single family residences, the other two parcels are vacant residential land.

The funds requested through this grant would help offset the costs for soil and groundwater remediation to facilitate revitalization of 121-123 Reynolds Street.

1.2 PROPOSED FUTURE USE OF SITE

The City has indicated that the redevelopment of this vacant Site is anticipated to be for residential use (specifically a single duplex home), consistent with the Voter’s Block LLC In-fill Housing Initiative. Given the lack of use of the property for several years, the current land use will be unaffected by the recommended remedy.

1.3 PURPOSE AND CONTENT OF REPORT

This report presents an evaluation of alternatives for the remediation of the 121-123 Reynolds Street Site, as shown on Figure 1. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) assigned Spill Number 1103833 to the Site. The project objective is to remediate the Site to the degree required to allow its redevelopment for residential use, as per 6NYCRR Part 375 and NYSDEC’s Commissioner Policy 51 (CP-51).

On behalf of the City, Day Environmental, Inc. (Day) completed an Opinion of Probable Cost for remediation of the 121-123 Reynolds Street Site. Stantec utilized this work and developed three remedial alternatives for consideration: 1) Alternative A is the no action alternative and includes monitored natural attenuation with an assumed duration of 30 years; 2) Alternative B includes the




excavation and off-Site disposal of impacted materials from the two impacted areas, installation of remediation infrastructure and one year of post-excavation groundwater monitoring with the potential for conducting a second year of monitoring contingent on the first year’s results; and 3) Alternative C includes all the components of Alternative B, and direct application of an in-situ, bioremediation amendment to the open excavations of the petroleum source area and downgradient petroleum plume and one year of post-excavation groundwater monitoring, with the potential for conducting a second year of monitoring contingent on the first year’s results. Based on the extent of the impacted areas, the contaminants of concerns, and the affected media, the recommended remedial approach is Alternative C.

The proposed remedial action includes the following:

• Excavation and off-Site disposal of shallow Lead and Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (SVOC) impacted soils (urban fill) in the northern portion of the Site;

• Excavation and off-Site disposal of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) impacted soil and bedrock from the area in proximity to the location of former underground storage tanks (USTs);

• Excavation and off-Site disposal of soil and bedrock located within the downgradient petroleum impacted plume, located approximately 7.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). The overlying 7.5 feet of clean fill/soil would be used as backfill material;

• Installation of remediation infrastructure for possible future delivery of a bioremediation amendment within the petroleum source area and the downgradient plume area excavation for potential additional treatment of residual contamination;

• Application of an in-situ, bioremediation amendment to the open excavation of the petroleum source area and downgradient petroleum plume to promote enhanced natural attenuation of residual petroleum related VOC impacted groundwater;

• Conducting one year of post excavation groundwater monitoring for VOCs, with the potential for conducting a second year of monitoring contingent on the first year’s results;

• Preparation of a site management plan (SMP) for future site use and re-development;

• Potential installation of a vapor sub-slab depressurization system (SSDS) for the future home; and

• Implementation of Institutional Controls incorporating the Site into the City of Rochester (City) BIS flagging system to ensure residual impacts are properly managed in the future, as necessary.




The analysis of remedial alternatives includes a summary of previous environmental investigations at the Site, an examination of potential exposure scenarios, applicable relevant and appropriate regulations (ARARs) that will be used as remedial Site cleanup objectives (RSCOs), a discussion of the evaluated remedial alternatives and a recommended remedial alternative.


Environmental Background November 2, 2017


2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND Environmental studies that have been completed for the 121-123 Reynolds Street Site and/or the surrounding area and reviewed for preparation of this ABCA include:

• A December 21, 2011 Data Package, Environmental Assessment and Remediation Services, 121 and 123 Reynolds Street, Rochester, NY NYSDEC Spill # 1103833.

• An April 2015 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the 121-123 Reynolds Street Site prepared by Day for the City.

• A January 2016 Phase II ESA of the 121-123 Reynolds Street Site prepared by Day for the City.

• An April 2016 Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) for Remediation of the 121-123 Reynolds Street Site prepared by Day for the City.

• A January 2017 Supplemental Phase II ESA of the 121-123 Reynolds Street Site prepared by Day for the City.

2.1 DECEMBER 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIATION SERVICES 121 AND 123 REYNOLDS STREET

In June 2011, petroleum impacts were encountered while excavating the basement foundation of a new home at 125 Reynolds Street, which is the adjacent parcel immediately to the south of 123 Reynolds Street. As part of the City’s effort to fulfill their obligations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) §107 – Liability, the City retained Day in June 2011 to investigate the source of petroleum impacts, evaluate the possible presence of abandoned underground storage tanks (USTs) on the Site, and perform remedial activities. Day subsequently performed a geophysical survey and the excavation of nine (9) test pits. As a result, 12 soil samples were collected and analyzed from the test pits, four (4) 1,000-gallon steel USTs were identified with two each in two separate tank pit. Three of the USTs which were found to contain fluids had their contents sampled and analyzed. The UST samples were found to contain petroleum related VOCs and SVOCS. The soils samples exhibited VOC and SVOC concentrations above NYSDEC Protection of Groundwater Soil Cleanup Objectives (SCOs), Residential Use SCOs, and Restricted Residential Use SCOs as well as CP-51 Soil Cleanup Levels (SCLs). Day subsequently provided engineering services for the removal of the four USTs, excavation and off-Site disposal of a limited amount of petroleum impacted soils from the UST excavations, collection and laboratory analysis of eight (8) post excavation soil samples, and excavation backfilling including Site restoration. Soil samples collected from each tank pit excavation indicated residual VOCs remaining above Protection of Groundwater SCOs and SCLs.




2.2 APRIL 2015 PHASE I ESA OF THE 121-123 REYNOLDS STREET SITE

In April 2015, Day performed a Phase I ESA of the 121-123 Reynolds Street Site in accordance with ASTM E1527-13. Funding from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) was used in-part, to fund this effort under Cooperative Agreement BF97207800-0 (CBAP-20). The Phase I indicated that the 121 Reynolds Street portion of the Site operated as a wagon repair shop from the early 1910s through the mid-1930s; a gasoline station and blacksmith shop from the mid-1930s through the late 1940s; a gasoline station from the late 1930s through the early 1950s and an auto repair shop from the early 1950s through the late 1980s. The 121 Reynolds Street portion became vacant in 1991. The 123 Reynolds Street portion of the Site was residential from the late 1880s through approximately 2010 and has been vacant land since that time.

The Phase I ESA identified the Active NYSDEC Spill Incident (NYSDEC Spill No. 1103833), former leaking USTs and the presence of contaminants in urban fill on the Site as recognized environmental conditions on the Site. The Phase I indicates that the 121 Reynolds Street portion of the Site is identified as NYSDEC Petroleum Bulk Storage (PBS) Facility #8-601544. From the PBS Facility Information Report, four (4) USTs were shown to be removed from the Site in 2011. As noted in Section 2.1, four (4) USTs and a limited amount of impacted soil (125 tons) were removed from the Site in 2011.

2.3 JANUARY 2016 PHASE II ESA OF THE 121-123 REYNOLDS STREET SITE

The January 2016 Phase II ESA indicated petroleum-type contamination in nine (9) test borings and four (4) monitoring wells located in proximity to, and downgradient of the former USTs as shown on Figures 2 and 3. Soil samples from four (4) of nineteen (19) test locations exceeded applicable SCOs and SCLs for VOCs. Groundwater samples from each of the four (4) monitoring wells exceeded Technical & Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) 1.1.1 Standards and Guidance Values for VOCs. Except for one (1) test location (TB-12), borings near the perimeter of the Site did not contain VOCs above applicable SCOs and SCLs.

Two (2) samples of urban fill material contained elevated concentrations of the metal Lead in exceedance of applicable SCOs, but not in exceedance of characteristic hazardous waste toxicity regulatory levels. Elevated semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) exceeding applicable SCOs and SCLs were detected in urban fill in one (1) test boring location. Urban fill was encountered in 12 of 20 Phase II ESA test borings from the ground surface to depths of up to approximately 6 feet bgs. The three samples containing concentrations of Lead or SVOCs exceeding SCOs and/or SCLs were located on the northern portion of the Site near the locations of the former gasoline station and auto repair facility.

Groundwater was found to generally flow south on the Site.




2.4 APRIL 2016 OPC FOR REMEDIATION OF THE 121-123 REYNOLDS STREET SITE

The April 2016 Opinion of Probable Costs for Remediation presented a remedial scenario which was similar to Remedial Alternative C. Overall, the OPC prepared by Day accounted for urban fill material excavation and off-Site disposal, petroleum source area and plume area saturated zone excavation, followed by installation of remediation infrastructure and direct application of an in-situ bioremediation amendment, the installation of an SSDS in a proposed residential home, preparation of a SMP, and post-remediation groundwater sampling and management activities.

2.5 JANUARY 2017 SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ESA OF THE 121-123 REYNOLDS STREET SITE

The January 2017 Supplemental Phase II ESA of the Site was performed to better define the extent of petroleum contamination in the overburden. This effort led to nine (9) additional test borings of the overburden with VOC-analysis. Overall, this report confirmed the recommendations of the April 2016 OPC but did reduce the amount of petroleum-impacted material in both the source and the plume areas. Day reduced their estimate of petroleum-impacted soil in the source area from 228 tons to 190 tons and in the downgradient plume area from 160 tons to 118 tons.


Applicable Regulations and Cleanup Standards November 2, 2017


3.0 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND CLEANUP STANDARDS

3.1 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Considering that remedial excavation and residential redevelopment activities are anticipated at the Site, and that residential buildings are located near the Site, the construction worker/trespasser, and local resident have been identified as the most appropriate potential human receptors.

Exposures to the construction worker may occur during remediation, construction and other activities that involve excavation at the Site or at its periphery.

Exposure to residents of nearby properties could potentially occur during excavation work at the Site through dispersion of particulates and volatilization of contaminants. Potential routes of exposure include:

• Inhalation of vapors released from volatile substances present in subsurface soils (potential future occupational worker and construction worker/trespasser, and local residents during construction);

• Ingestion and dermal contact of substances in subsurface soils (potential future occupational worker and construction worker/trespasser); and

• Ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact with substances present in groundwater (potential future occupational worker and construction worker/trespasser).

Potential exposure during the remedial work will be managed with a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP) designed to protect Site workers and the public. A perimeter fence will be in place during remedial work to prevent the public from accessing the Site to mitigate that potential exposure pathway. Potential future exposures to residual contamination, if any, will be mitigated by way of institutional and engineering controls and a Site Management Plan (SMP).

3.2 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Title 6 NYCRR Part 375 Residential SCOs and NYSDEC’s Commissioner Policy 51 (CP-51) Table 1 SCLs are the ARARs for soil cleanup. Contaminants of Concern (CoCs) at the Site are defined as the substances for which the concentrations in soil exceed the associated Residential SCOs or SCLs. Impacted soil or fill containing contaminants above SCOs or SCLs that are left in-place will be managed with a Site Management Plan (SMP) for potential future disturbances (e.g., utility repair work), and with environmental engineering and institutional controls (e.g., placement of a clean


Applicable Regulations and Cleanup Standards November 2, 2017


soil cover, installation of a sub-slab depressurization system in future buildings, and flagging the Site in the City’s Building Information System).

Even though groundwater in the City cannot be used for potable purposes as per City code; per State regulations, Class GA drinking water-based standards are the applicable ARARs for groundwater. CoCs in groundwater were selected based on exceedances of 6 NYCRR Part 703 Class GA Groundwater Standards, and NYSDEC Technical and Operational Guidance Series 1.1.1: Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values (GSGVs) and Groundwater Effluent Limitations dated June 1998, revised June 2004.

In the event that it is not feasible to achieve the applicable SCOs/SCLs for soil and/or the GSGVs for groundwater, site-specific cleanup levels will be established for the Site that, in conjunction with institutional and engineering controls, will attain conditions protective of public health and the environment for the intended and reasonably anticipated use of the Site.

To protect occupants of future buildings, SSDSs will need to be installed, or post-remedial soil vapor sampling will be required to confirm that SSDSs are not necessary based on the Human Health Risk Assessment guidelines outlined in NYSDEC DER-10, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Final Guidance for Evaluating Soil Vapor Intrusion in the State of New York dated October 2006, and the May 2017 Updates to Soil Vapor/Indoor Air Decision Matrices.

3.3 CLEANUP OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY

The NYSDEC will oversee the cleanup through the Petroleum Spill Cleanup Program via a Stipulation agreement executed with the City.


Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives for the Site November 2, 2017


4.0 BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES FOR THE SITE Three brownfield cleanup alternatives were chosen and evaluated for this analysis. The selected alternatives include:

1) No Action: Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA).

2) Excavation of Impacted Soils and Weathered Bedrock.

3) Excavation of Impacted Soils and Weathered Bedrock with Enhanced MNA.

4.1 ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION/MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION (MNA)

The no action alternative does not involve proactive remedial measures but instead relies on periodically monitoring the groundwater contamination to verify that natural attenuation is continuing to occur. For calculating an opinion of probable cost, it was assumed that groundwater would be sampled quarterly from five (5) wells, with associated laboratory analysis and reporting, over the course of thirty (30) years.

4.2 ALTERNATIVE B: EXCAVATION OF IMPACTED SOILS AND WEATHERED BEDROCK

This alternative includes the excavation and off-Site disposal of soil from the northern portion of the Site impacted by Lead and SVOCs, and petroleum-impacted soil and weathered bedrock from the source area in the northeast portion of the Site, as shown on Figures 4 and 5. Impacted soil and bedrock in the downgradient plume area located on the southeast portion of the Site would also be excavated and disposed of off-Site. The contractor on-Site will need to dewater both the source area and the downgradient plume area excavations once bedrock is encountered as the Phase II indicated the top of the groundwater table was situated in proximity to the overburden-bedrock interface. Impacted soil in the plume area is covered by approximately 7.5 feet of clean soil/fill material. Clean soil/fill material would be removed and re-used as backfill following the excavation of impacted soils. Prior to the placement of backfill, remediation infrastructure would be installed for potential future groundwater treatment. One year of quarterly post-excavation groundwater monitoring would be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the removal program in addressing groundwater impacts, with the potential for conducting a second year of semi-annual monitoring contingent on the first year’s results.


Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives for the Site November 2, 2017


4.3 ALTERNATIVE C: EXCAVATION OF IMPACTED SOILS AND WEATHERED BEDROCK W/ ENHANCED MNA

This alternative includes the components of Alternative B, plus the direct application of a bioremediation amendment to the open excavations to create aerobic conditions and accelerate VOC biodegradation in groundwater. This enhanced MNA approach would be applied to the open excavations located at:

1) The source area for petroleum impacts located in the northeast portion of the Site; and

2) The downgradient petroleum impacted plume.

Groundwater samples from monitoring wells in these locations indicated VOC impacts. One year of quarterly post-excavation groundwater monitoring would be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the removal program and the addition of the bioremediation amendment in addressing groundwater impacts, with the potential for conducting a second year of semi-annual monitoring contingent on the first year’s results.


Evaluation of Cleanup Alternatives November 2, 2017


5.0 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES Potential cleanup alternatives were evaluated based on the following criteria: effectiveness, implementation feasibility, preliminary opinions of probable cost, general reasonableness, and the potential for extreme weather events to adversely impact proposed cleanup remedies.

5.1 ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION/MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION (MNA)

Effectiveness - The No Action Alternative is not effective because it does nothing to address the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination on the Site. It also is harmful to the overall mission to redevelop this Site for residential purposes and to further the Voter’s Block in-fill housing initiative.

Implementation Feasibility - This alternative is easily implemented.

Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost - The preliminary opinion of probable cost for this alternative is approximately $168,909 (refer to Table 1).

General Reasonableness – This alternative provides no long-term management of the Site’s impacted soil and groundwater and effectively prohibits Site development. As a result, this is not a reasonable cleanup option.

Potential Adverse Impacts Caused by Extreme Weather Events – The Site is not located in a flood plain, near a coast line, or in an area with a potential increase of drought. The City completed a Climate Action Plan in 2017 which identified increased temperatures and precipitation as potential climate change impacts to the City. Neither one of these conditions are believed to impact this alternative.

5.2 ALTERNATIVE B: EXCAVATION OF IMPACTED SOILS AND WEATHERED BEDROCK

Effectiveness - This alternative is an effective way to limit exposure and manage impacted soils and weathered bedrock at the Site. This alternative effectively manages impacted soils and weathered bedrock that require removal from the Site while retaining those soils that meet the criteria for reuse on-Site. However, this alternative does not specifically address VOC-impacted groundwater at the Site which is in exceedance of applicable groundwater standards.


Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost – The preliminary opinion of probable cost for this alternative is approximately $232,937 (refer to Table 1).


Evaluation of Cleanup Alternatives November 2, 2017


General Reasonableness - This alternative does address impacted soil and weathered bedrock concerns at the Site which would allow for the redevelopment of the Site for residential purposes. However, this alternative does not specifically address VOC-impacted groundwater which is in exceedance of applicable groundwater standards and could lead to soil vapor intrusion concerns in future structures on-Site. This alternative would allow for the installation of in-situ remediation infrastructure which would allow for future remediation if groundwater monitoring proves further efforts to remediate the Site are needed.

Potential Adverse Impacts Caused by Extreme Weather Events - The Site is not located in a flood plain, near a coast line, or in an area with a potential increase of drought. The City completed a Climate Action Plan in 2017 which identified increased temperatures and precipitation as potential climate change impacts to the City. Neither one of these conditions are believed to impact this alternative.

5.3 ALTERNATIVE C: EXCAVATION OF IMPACTED SOILS AND WEATHERED BEDROCK W/ ENHANCED MNA

Effectiveness - This alternative is an effective way to limit exposure and manage impacted soils and weathered bedrock at the Site. This alternative effectively manages impacted soils that require removal from the Site while retaining those soils that meet the criteria for reuse on-Site. This alternative also addresses VOC-impacted groundwater at the Site which is in exceedance of applicable groundwater standards.


Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost - The preliminary opinion of probable cost for this alternative is approximately $245,853 (refer to Table 1).

General Reasonableness – This alternative does address impacted soil and weathered bedrock concerns at the Site which would allow for the redevelopment of the Site for residential purposes. This alternative also addresses VOC-impacted groundwater which is in exceedance of applicable groundwater standards. In addition, this alternative allows for the installation of in-situ remediation infrastructure which would allow for future remediation if groundwater monitoring proves further efforts to remediate the Site are needed.

Potential Adverse Impacts Caused by Extreme Weather Events - The Site is not located in a flood plain, near a coast line, or in an area with a potential increase of drought. The City completed a Climate Action Plan in 2017 which identified increased temperatures and precipitation as potential climate change impacts to the City. Neither one of these conditions are believed to impact this alternative.


Recommended Cleanup Alternative November 2, 2017


6.0 RECOMMENDED CLEANUP ALTERNATIVE The recommended cleanup alternative for the Site is Alternative C – Excavation of impacted soils and weathered bedrock with enhanced MNA. While this is the most expensive option, it effectively addresses both impacted soil and groundwater at the Site. This option also enables the City to effectively proceed with its in-fill housing redevelopment initiative.


References November 2, 2017


7.0 REFERENCES 1) City of Rochester, May 2017, Climate Action Plan,

http://www.cityofrochester.gov/climateactionplan/

2) Day Environmental, Inc, December 2011, Environmental Assessment, and Remediation Services,121-123 Reynolds Street Rochester, New York.

3) Day Environmental, Inc, April 2015, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,121-123 Reynolds

Street Rochester, New York. 4) Day Environmental, Inc, January 2016, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report,121-

123 Reynolds Street Rochester, New York. 5) Day Environmental, Inc, April 2016, Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) for Remediation,

NYSDEC Spill #1103833, 121-123 Reynolds Street Rochester, New York. 6) Day Environmental, Inc, January 2017, Supplemental Phase II Environmental Site

Assessment Report,121-123 Reynolds Street Rochester, New York, NYSDEC Spill #1103833.


bm u:\190500972\05_report_deliv\deliverables\reports\abca\rpt_190500972_epa_abca_121_123 reynolds st_20171031.docx A.1

A APPENDIX A: TABLES


bm u:\190500972\05_report_deliv\deliverables\reports\abca\rpt_190500972_epa_abca_121_123 reynolds st_20171031.docx A.2

TABLE 1 – OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS FOR REMEDIATION

Note: 1) Costs obtained from April 2016 Day Environmental, Inc. Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) for Remediation, NYSDEC Spill No. 1103833, 121-123 Reynolds Street, Rochester, New York were modified based on the January 2017 Day Environmental, Inc. Supplemental Phase II Report for the Site.

Alternative Associated Tasks Est. Cost/Task Total CostQuarterly groundwater monitoring for 30 years (includes five (5) wells with laboratory analysis for VOCs) *Note: Computed as net present value over 30 years using a 6% discount rate. $153,554Subtotal $153,55410% Contingency $15,355Site Preparation $19,425Fill Material Excavation, Transportation, Disposal and Backfilling $56,638Petroleum Source Area and Unsaturated Zone Excavation, Transportation, Disposal and Backfilling (inc. dewatering and remediation infrastructure) $54,707Petroleum Plume Area and Unsaturated Zone Excavation, Transportation, Disposal and Backfilling (inc. dewatering and remediation infrastructure) $49,718Site Restoration $8,250Post-Remediation Tasks (6 rounds of gw monitoring, residential SSDS installation, and SMP preparation. $15,524Reporting $7,500Subtotal $211,76110% Contingency $21,176Site Preparation $19,425Fill Material Excavation, Transportation, Disposal and Backfilling $56,638Petroleum Source Area and Unsaturated Zone Excavation, Transportation, Disposal and Backfilling (inc. dewatering, remediation infrastructure and bioremediation amendment) $59,167Petroleum Plume Area and Unsaturated Zone Excavation, Transportation, Disposal and Backfilling (inc. dewatering, remediation infrastructure and bioremediation amendment) $56,999Site Restoration $8,250Post-Remediation Tasks (6 rounds of gw monitoring, residential SSDS installation, and SMP preparation. $15,524Reporting $7,500Subtotal $223,50310% Contingency $22,350

B1

C1

$232,937

$245,853

A $168,909


bm u:\190500972\05_report_deliv\deliverables\reports\abca\rpt_190500972_epa_abca_121_123 reynolds st_20171031.docx B.3

B APPENDIX B: FIGURES



FIGURE 1 – SITE LOCATION MAP

Figure No.

Title

Project Location

Client/Project

!(

SITE: 121-123 Reynolds StreetRochester, New York

U:\1

9050

0972

\05_

repo

rt_de

liv\d

eliv

erab

les\

repo

rts\F

igur

es\G

IS\m

xd\F

igur

e 1_

2017

1013

.mxd

Revi

sed:

201

7-10

-13

By: a

jkelly

($$¯

Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipientaccepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipientreleases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data.

Legend:!( Site Location 1:24,000 (at original document size of 8.5x11)

1

Site Location Map REVA

City of RochesterAnalysis of Brownfield Cleanup AlternativesBrownfield Cleanup Grant Application

121-123 Reynolds StreetRochester, New York

Prepared by AJK on 2017-10-12Technical Review by KI on 2017-10-13

Independent Review by MPS on 2017-10-13

Site Location Map

Notes1. Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen's Printer for Ontario,2013.3. Topo imagery provided by ESRI Online Services and USGS 7.5 Minute Quad of Rochester West, NY, dated 1995.4. Key Map Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI,Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GISUser CommunityCopyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

0 2,000 4,0001,000Feet



FIGURE 2 – SITE PLAN WITH INTERPOLATED PEAK PID READINGS ON-SITE AND IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY

Figure No.

Title

Project Location

Client/Project

1148

292

1148

292

U:\1

9050

0972

\05_

repo

rt_de

liv\d

eliv

erab

les\

repo

rts\F

igur

es\G

IS\m

xd\F

igur

e 2_

2017

1017

.mxd

Revi

sed:

201

7-10

-17

By: a

jkelly

($$¯

Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data.

Legend

2





Site Plan with Interpolated Peak PIDReadings On-Site and Public Right-of-Way

Notes1. Source: Map references Day Environmental Consultants 01-06-2016 Figure 3 of Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

@? Seeler test pit samples collected June 2011

Excavation area conducted September 2, 2011Approximate Parcel Boundary

Approximate former building footprint based on 1938 and 1950 Sanborn maps.

@? Test pit samples collected September 2, 2011

@? Test pit samples collected July 7, 2011

Peak PID in parts per million (ppm)

0 - 25

100 - 200

500 - 1000200 - 500

25 - 100

1000 - 3000

@? Overburden test boring colelcted Sept 24, 2015

&< Revised proposed interface well



FIGURE 3 – SITE PLAN WITH INTERPOLATED TOTAL VOCS MEASURED IN SOIL SAMPLES

Figure No.

Title

Project Location

Client/Project

Reyn

olds

1148

292

1148

292

U:\1

9050

0972

\05_

repo

rt_de

liv\d

eliv

erab

les\

repo

rts\F

igur

es\G

IS\m

xd\F

igur

e 3_

2017

1017

.mxd

Revi

sed:

201

7-10

-17

By: a

jkelly

($$¯


Legend

3





Site Plan with Interpolated Total VOCsMeasured in Soil Samples

Notes1. Source: Map references Day Environmental Consultants 01-11-2016 Figure 4 of Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

Excavation area conducted September 2, 2011

Approximate Parcel Boundary

Approximate former building footprint based on 1938 and 1950 Sanborn maps.

@? Test pit samples collected September 2, 2011

@? Test pit samples collected July 7, 2011VOCs in Soil Measured in parts per million (ppm)

0 - 2

5 - 100

500 - 1000100 - 500

2 - 5

1000 - 2000

@? Overburden test boring colelcted Sept 24, 2015


Exceeds CP-51 Soil Cleanup Level and/or Part 375 Residential Use Soil Cleanup Objectives for Petroleum-Related VOCs



FIGURE 4 – SITE PLAN WITH INTERPOLATED PEAK PID READINGS AND REMEDIAL COMPONENTS

Figure No.

Title

Project Location

Client/Project

1148

292

1148

292

U:\1

9050

0972

\05_

repo

rt_de

liv\d

eliv

erab

les\

repo

rts\F

igur

es\G

IS\m

xd\F

igur

e 4_

2017

1017

.mxd

Revi

sed:

201

7-10

-17

By: a

jkelly

($$¯


Legend

4





Site Plan with Interpolated Peak PID Readingsand Remedial Components

Notes1. Source: Map references Day Environmental Consultants 03-03-2016 Figure 1 of Opinion of Probable Cost for Remediation

Proposed petroleum plume excavation


Proposed construction area

Peak PID in parts per million (ppm)

0 - 2

5 - 100

500 - 1000100 - 500

2 - 5

1000 - 2000


Proposed Fill/SVOC/Metal excavation areaProposed petroleum source excavation

Approximate lot separation



FIGURE 5 - SITE PLAN WITH INTERPOLATED TOTAL VOCS DETECTED IN ANALYTICAL LABORTAORY SOIL SAMPLES AND REMEDIAL COMPONENTS

Figure No.

Title

Project Location

Client/Project

1148

292

1148

292

U:\1

9050

0972

\05_

repo

rt_de

liv\d

eliv

erab

les\

repo

rts\F

igur

es\G

IS\m

xd\F

igur

e 5_

2017

1017

.mxd

Revi

sed:

201

7-10

-17

By: a

jkelly

($$¯


Legend

5





Site Plan with Interpolated Total VOCs Detected inAnalytical Laboratory Samples and RemedialComponents

Notes1. Source: Map references Day Environmental Consultants 01-04-2016 Figure 2 of Opinion of Probable Cost for Remediation

Proposed petroleum plume excavation


Proposed construction area

VOCs in Soil Measured in parts per million (ppm)

0 - 2

5 - 100

500 - 1000100 - 500

2 - 5

1000 - 2000


Proposed Fill/SVOC/Metal excavation areaProposed petroleum source excavation

Approximate lot separation

OMB Number: 4040-0004Expiration Date: 10/31/2019

* 1. Type of Submission: * 2. Type of Application:

* 3. Date Received: 4. Applicant Identifier:

5a. Federal Entity Identifier: 5b. Federal Award Identifier:

6. Date Received by State: 7. State Application Identifier:

* a. Legal Name:

* b. Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN): * c. Organizational DUNS:

* Street1:

Street2:

* City:

County/Parish:

* State:

Province:

* Country:

* Zip / Postal Code:

Department Name: Division Name:

Prefix: * First Name:

Middle Name:

* Last Name:

Suffix:

Title:

Organizational Affiliation:

* Telephone Number: Fax Number:

* Email:

* If Revision, select appropriate letter(s):

* Other (Specify):

State Use Only:

8. APPLICANT INFORMATION:

d. Address:

e. Organizational Unit:

f. Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application:

Application for Federal Assistance SF-424

Preapplication

Application

Changed/Corrected Application

New

Continuation

Revision

11/16/2017

City of Rochester, NY

16-6002551 0024658050000

30 Church Street

City Hall - Room 300B

Rochester

Monroe

NY: New York

USA: UNITED STATES

14614-1291

Environmental Services Environmental Quality

Ms. Anne

Spaulding

Manager of Environmental Quality

585-428-7474 585-428-6010

[email protected]

Funding Opportunity Number:EPA-OLEM-OBLR-17-09 Received Date:Nov 16, 2017 11:20:44 AM ESTTracking Number:GRANT12521310

* 9. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type:

Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type:

Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type:

* Other (specify):

* 10. Name of Federal Agency:

11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:

CFDA Title:

* 12. Funding Opportunity Number:

* Title:

13. Competition Identification Number:

Title:

14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties, States, etc.):

* 15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project:

Attach supporting documents as specified in agency instructions.


C: City or Township Government

Environmental Protection Agency

66.818

Brownfields Assessment and Cleanup Cooperative Agreements

EPA-OLEM-OBLR-17-09

FY18 GUIDELINES FOR BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP GRANTS

City of Rochester, NY - Brownfield Cleanup Grant - 121-123 Reynolds Street

View AttachmentsDelete AttachmentsAdd Attachments

View AttachmentDelete AttachmentAdd Attachment


* a. Federal

* b. Applicant

* c. State

* d. Local

* e. Other

* f. Program Income

* g. TOTAL

.

Prefix: * First Name:

Middle Name:

* Last Name:

Suffix:

* Title:

* Telephone Number:

* Email:

Fax Number:

* Signature of Authorized Representative: * Date Signed:

18. Estimated Funding ($):

21. *By signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications** and (2) that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances** and agree to comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001)

** The list of certifications and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained in the announcement or agency specific instructions.

Authorized Representative:


* a. Applicant

Attach an additional list of Program/Project Congressional Districts if needed.

* b. Program/Project

* a. Start Date: * b. End Date:

16. Congressional Districts Of:

17. Proposed Project:

28, 29 28, 29

Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment

10/01/2018 09/30/2021

200,000.00

0.00

0.00

40,000.00

0.00

0.00

240,000.00

a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on

b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review.

c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372.

Yes No

Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment

** I AGREE

Ms. Lovely

A

Warren

Mayor

585-428-7045 585-428-6059

[email protected]

Vicki Brawn

* 20. Is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (If "Yes," provide explanation in attachment.)

* 19. Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process?

11/16/2017

If "Yes", provide explanation and attach


cover letter attachments 18... · poverty” where 20% or more of its population has lived in...

Documents