Most of the buildings at the former Avtex fibers plant site in Front Royal have redevelopment value, a study shows.

The study funded for the Industrial redevelopment Committee by the FMC Corp., a former owner of the site, also suggests a three phase approach to reuse.

Eugene A. Mazza of Mazza Engineering Associates of Alipuippa, Pa., which conducted the study, said Tuesday that there are 35.7 acres under roof at the plant and structural evaluation shows that 28.5 acres of those buildings— the equivalent of 21.5 football fields--could be reused.

That doesn’t include the water treatment plant, which is committed to the Superfund site’s cleanup, or the water filtration plant and the powerhouse, which have no short-term reuse value, he said.

Generally, he said, leaking roofs would have to be repaired and new heating and ventilation systems would have to be installed for individual tenants.

Redevelopment talk has centered on a number of small industries or businesses at the site rather than one large one.

Mazza suggests a phased approach because trying to do everything at once would be too large of an undertaking. Doing it piece by piece also would allow tenants to move in and provide cash flow that could be used for renovations.

The first phase of the reuse plan concentrates on the buildings at the north end of the plant, those that were farthest from the manufacturing process. They are generally in the best shape, Mazza said.

Those areas including the accounting and employment building and the 10 acre parking lot across Kendrick Lane from the plant.

Recommended improvements include a new entrance onto Kendrick Lane, probably east of the existing entrance, and extension of town water and sewer lines to the site. The water line would provide fire protection and drinking water, Mazza said.

The Potomac Edison power station on the eastern edge of the site would have to be upgraded to serve individual tenants, Mazza said.

The first phase would renovate about 700,000 square feet in 22 buildings at a cost of about $2.75 per square foot. No demolition would be required.

The second phase skips over the middle part of the plant where the most intense chemical process took place, Mazza said.

About 359,000 square feet in 12 buildings at the southern part of the plant would be renovated and about 65,000 square feet of highly specialized buildings would have to come down because they were designed for rayon manufacturing, he said. Phase two renovations would cost $2.25 per square foot.

A new shell building would cost between $15 and $25 per square foot to construct, Mazza said.

The buildings could be used for assembly plants, which would create the most jobs, he said. Warehousing does not create many positions.

An entrance to the south side of the plant off West Main Street is possible, but it would be disruptive to the neighborhood, he said.

Extending Kerfoot Avenue through the plant to Kendrick Lane is also possible, but it would interfere with the railroad loop at the site, he said.

The final phase is the least cost effective, according to Mazza. It includes the rehabilitation of three buildings totaling 189,000 square feet and the demolition of eight buildings totaling 240,000 square feet. The cost of the renovation would be about $4.74 per square foot.

Mazza said he believes grants would be available for the infrastructure costs. Tenants may be eligible for low-interest loans or grants as well, he said.

The study is similar to the renovation plan Mazza did for the former Avtex plant in Meadville, Pa., that now employs hundreds of people in more that a dozen enterprises.

Several of the buildings are nearly ready to use as they now stand, Mazza said. The building closest to Kendrick Lane, which housed the accounting and employment office, has a leaky ceiling and basement, but is otherwise sound, The research and development and administration building is in good condition and ready for occupancy, Mazza said.

Unlike the Meadville plant, however, the Front Royal plant is a Superfund site. Mazza’s study was a structural engineering study designed to look at the feasibility of reuse. It includes an inventory of every building on the site, but it was not intended as an environmental study and the cost projections do not include the environmental cleanup.

"I don’t know if Fred (Foster) meant to invite a wet blanket to the meeting, but I’m going to be one," said Kathryn A. Hodgkiss, the chief of the Superfund remedial branch for the mid-Atlantic region of the Environmental Protection Agency. Foster is chairman of the committee.

The EPA still doesn’t know the extent of the contamination in and under some of the buildings, she said. In a year or two, the agency will know more about how much cleanup is needed, she said.

For example, she said, there are 12 miles of sewers under the plant. She said it’s her understanding that hydrogen sulfide is building up in some. There is a chance that some of the buildings and grounds may not be able to be cleaned to the point of reuse, she said.

The agency recently completed its plan that outlines the work that will be undertaken to study the extent of contamination of the site and the best way to clean it up. The work will be done over the summer.

It takes an average of three years to determine the location of contamination at a Superfund site and clean it up, Ms. Hodgkiss said.

And, she said," this site is by no means average."

But that doesn’t mean no property will be released before the end of the cleanup period, she said.

She told the group to study its priorities and ask the agency to consider adjusting its work plan to accommodate those areas earlier than scheduled.

"I can understand their frustration," Ms. Hodgkiss said after the meeting.

The length of time a Superfund cleanup takes can be incompatible with a community’s plan for quick redevelopment, she said.