November 20, 2007 - Parks Department Responds To Senator Flanagan Regarding October 24th Letter

-de,ATtotv.r,. g.:-

c-{

r-h

--,

gE q 6 i5-;7*/ F:

n

m q m

6 uewvonxsmre ---

Eliot Spitzer

I

Governor

New York State Otfice of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

Carol Ash Commissioner

The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza. Agency Building 1, Albany, New York www.nysparks.com

November 20-2001

The Honorable John Flanagan New York State Senate 260 Middle Country Road suire 203 Smithtown. New York 11787 Dear Senator Flanagan:

I'm happy to respond to the five questions

posed in your October 24,2007 letter to me, seeking clarification on several issues discussed at our October 22od meeting to discuss the former Kings Park Psychiatric Facility.

1.

Wat franteworAprocess will

be used to e,,taluate the environmental conditions on

the property?

As you know, in August OPRFIP secured a detailed engineering report from one of our term consultants (LIRO Engineers, Inc.) that provides detailed cost estimates for asbestos and lead remediation and buildinidemolition costs for the 153 acres transferred to OPRIIP in 2000. As described in previous correspondence, the estimated cost for the 153 acres could be as much as $7.0

million. Over the past several months, OPRHP has investigated whether any private entity, that previously proposed to acquire the site, compiled remediation information of sr,rfficienl detail to allorn' us to develop a comprehensive clean-up cost estimate for the 320 acres transferred to State Parks jurisdiction on December 29,2006. We have now determined that the studies completed in the past are neither complete nor of sufficient detail. Therefore, the agency will need to hire a qualified engineering firm. We are in the process of initiating the formal RFP process to hire a consultant to conduct this detailed analysis, which will include a comprehensive sampling program to quantify the amount of asbestos within each building, evaluate on-site and off-site disposal options and costs for disposing of demolition material, and deterrnine what steps are needed to address other contamination problems on the site (such as construction and demolition material -.*-, buried on-site in the past). I will provide you periodic progress reports as we .#' advance the procurement process to hire the engineering consulting firm. As you

1ry

",i

,) .4n

An Effial Opportunitylntirmative Action Agency

fi{Ov 2 s 10$? {}

printed on recycled paper

know, execution of a formal contract will require approval from the Office of State comptroiler and other standard state contract approvars.

2'

Wat permittittg.process, iJ'any, witl Ievels etc. )?

for remediating

the

be needed at the Jbderal, state and/or local property (e.g. demolition, clebri.s removal/containment,

Asbestos remediation permits wiil be required from the New york State Department of Labor. The contractor hiied to remove the asbestos will be responsible for obtaining the permits.

Through the detailed engineering study described above, we will evaluate the appropriateness and cost implications of on-site and off-sire disposal oftitn, ro. disposing of demolition material. If the engineering study were to conclude that on-site disposal of certain types of demolition matelal may be un oppropiate and viable option, we would need to obtain permit approval from the nepartinent or Environmental conservation. The engine".ing .tuoy will also clarify whether OPRFIP may need to obtain other permits to remediate the site.

In addition, OPRFIP will need to comply with the State Environmental euality Review Act (SEQRA) for any actions taken on the property. opRFIp will be lead agency for sEeRA review and will coordinate with appropriate entities.

we are not aware of any federal or local government approvars required to remediate the site.

3. wat consultative services will be required

or solicitedfrom other state/federal/local agencies (e.g., Departnrcnts of Labor and Health regarding lead/asbestos abatement, etc. ) ?

we anticipate consulting with the Department of Labor and the Department of Environmental conservation as we develop and implement remediation strategies for the property

4'

vlhai en'-ironmenta! pragrains at thefedercl, state or lcca!

be eligible for funding to apply towaid this project?

Ie,;e!s may

stcte pnrks

The agency has not identified any state, federal, or local environmental funding programs that might be available to help pay for the cost of cleaning up the Kings Park properly. The site does not meet the criteria for listing as ahazardous waste site as defined by DEC or the federal government. Asbestos remediation and building demolition are not eligible costs within the state's brownfields program, and even if they were, opHRp (as a state agency) is not erigibre for the brownfield tax credits program. At present, the $25 million appropriated in FY2006-07 for Kings Park remediation purposes are the only funds available for this projecr.

5.

What ore the niles/procedures

for dedication/alienation of state parkland?

State parkland is owned by the People of the State of New York, under the jurisdiction of the Office of Parks, Recreation and F{rstoric Preservation. Consideration of alternative uses of state parkland is governed by Sections 3 and 30-a of the Public Lands Law, which provide for the jurisdiction of state-owned land to be transferred from one state agency to another, or for the abandonment of state properly. Transfer of jurisdiction is'undefiaken at the discretion of the Executive Branch. In addition, the Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law authorizes OPRI{P to exchange ownership of state parkland for private land, grant easements for public purposes, etc. As a general rule, state legislation is not required (there are exceptions, such as land acquired with funds from the state Environmental Protection Fund; however none of these exceptions apply to the former Kings Park property). Note that the situation is different with municipal parkland - unlike state agencies, local governments must secure legislative approval prior to alienating parkland. Let me emphasize that this response does not imply that OPRFIP is advancing an effort to transfer jurisdiction of the former Kings Park property, but rather is simply a response to your question. As stated above, at this time we are focused solely on determining the cost of cleaning up the property.

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have additional comments or questions. Commissioner Ash and I look forward to maintaining an ongoing dialogue with you, Assemblyman Fitzpatrick, and other elected and community leaders about the future of

the Kings Park property.

Sincerelv.

M,&on

Executi ve Deputy Commissioner

Cc:

Commissioner Carol Ash Commissioner Pete Grannis Executive Deputy Commission Stu Gruskin Assemblyman Michael Fitzpatrick