Requires environmental impact statements to consider cumulative effects of an action

Under the bill cumulative impacts would be defined as impacts that may occur when a proposed action or actions:

* May result in changes in two or more elements of the environment;

* When considered together with one or more pending or proposed actions, may result in changes in one or more common elements of the environment;

* Will result in one or more other actions likely to be undertaken as a result thereof;

* Is a part of a proposal or plan that includes or contemplates one or more other simultaneous or subsequent actions;

* Is dependent upon approval or completion of one or more actions;

* Is a plan, program, or series of actions that will restrict the range of future alternatives, policies, or actions;

* When considered together with existing or background levels of contamination or pollution or actions which have had an adverse effect on the environment, may result in combined or synergistic impacts on the environment; or

* A combination of one or more of the above.

* Such impacts would be considered without regard to whether the action or actions are proposed by the same individual, person, or agency, or whether the action is pending for approval by one or more agencies.

Justification

The decision whether or not to prepare an EIS should not be made in isolation from existing community pollution levels or a previous decision requiring that an EIS be prepared for the project when it was proposed in another location. Nonetheless, EISs have not been required by the department even though these factors are significantly present.

No EIS was required to be prepared by New York City or the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) for the Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Regulated Medical Waste Incinerator. This was apparently an important part because the standards and various environmental and risk assessment studies were performed to the satisfaction of DEC. This is unacceptable. A number of contaminant-emitting facilities are already located in the affected community, and no analysis was prepared and circulated to the public about existing pollution levels in the community and the cumulative impact of these and the new facility. A primary purpose of an EIS is to present pertinent information to the public for its scrutiny and comment. The environmental and risk-assessment data developed should have been released to the public as part of an EIS process. Adding additional consternation to the public in the case in question is that an EIS was required for a similar type of facility located in a rural area of the State.

Presently, a project which is required to have an EIS prepared when proposed at a location in one DEC region is able to move its project to another DEC region and avoid such a requirement. This happened in the case of a transformer incinerator first proposed for relocation within Region 3 which then moved to Region 4. Region 4 staff also recommended that an EIS be prepared, but this was changed by regional and headquarters DEC office staff apparently as a result of intervention requested by the applicant.

Prior legislative history

2007-2008: S.2767 2005-2006: S.3131 2003-2004: S.2988 2001-2002: S.2410

Fiscal implications

This bill could lead to preparation of some additional environmental impact statements with associated lead agency review costs. Preparation costs are usually borne by project applicants.

Effective date

One hundred eightieth day after enactment; provided, however that effective immediately, the amendment and/or repeal of any rule or regulation necessary for the implementation of this act on its effective date are authorized and directed to be made and completed on or before such effective date.