A00840 Summary:

BILL NO    A00840 

SAME AS    Same as S 843

SPONSOR    Dinowitz (MS)

COSPNSR    Colton, Jaffee

MLTSPNSR   Gottfried, Koon, McEneny, Pheffer, Sweeney

Amd SS8-0109 & 8-0105, En Con L

Requires environmental impact statements to consider cumulative effects of an
action for projects in communities already experiencing the impact by polluting
facilities; defines "cumulative environmental impacts".

A00840 Actions:

BILL NO    A00840 

01/07/2009 referred to environmental conservation
01/06/2010 referred to environmental conservation

A00840 Votes:

A00840 Memo:

 BILL NUMBER:  A840

 TITLE OF BILL :  An act to amend the environmental conservation law,
in relation to the requirement for an environmental impact statement

 PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL :

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that lead agencies consider the
cumulative effects of a proposed action when an environmental impact
statement (EIS) is performed during the state Environmental Quality
Review Act (SEQRA) process.

 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS :

This bill would add a new provision to environmental impact statement
preparation under SEQRA requiring an analysis of cumulative
environmental impacts of a proposed action, including efforts to
minimize such impacts.

Under the bill cumulative environmental 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 other
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, EIS's 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- A.1009- Referred to Environmental Conservation
2005-06- A.1423- Advanced to 3rd reasing cal.411/S.3131- Referred to
Environmental Conservation
2003-04- A.2847- Advanced to 3rd reasing cal.599/S.2988- Referred to
Environmental Conservation
2001-02- A.1328- Passed Assembly/S.2410- Referred to Environmental
Conservation

 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 :
Thirtieth day after enactment.