DEC’s Green Sustainable Remediation and Climate Resiliency in Environmental Cleanups

An effective plan can help assure GSR and Climate Resiliency goals are achieved. Effective plans at a minimum will consider:

•  scheduling to reduce fuel consumption and associated air emissions as well as lessen disturbance to the land and local ecosystems;
• local product suppliers and service providers;
• the use of passive, remote, non-invasive or minimally invasive technologies;
• minimizing material use and waste generation;
• the use of products containing recycled and biobased contents or products that have reuse or recycling potential; and 
• use cleaner and more energy-efficient equipment and construction techniques. 

Approvable work plans must plan for qualitative or quantitative assessments (as appropriate), best management practices analysis, tracking metrics, and climate resiliency. Work plans and reports should present suggestions or techniques that could further reduce the footprint of the overall project or phase, include efforts to minimize the environmental footprint, mitigate emissions and optimize the environmental cleanup or redevelopment of the site. Reports must summarize all GSR actions, including best management practices (BMPs) and climate resilience, that were implemented during the implementation of the work, any metrics pertaining to waste or emission reductions, deviations from the work plan, and any recommendations for future optimization of GSR techniques at the site. Work plans and reports shall not be inconsistent with the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (CLCPA) and will be certified as prepared in substantial conformance with DER-31. 

Conduct a footprint analysis, considering all applicable information (energy use, materials, labor, etc.) for each cleanup activity. Two examples of such a program are SiteWiseTM Evaluation tool and EPA’s Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis (SEFA). These programs will perform a life cycle analysis and generate metrics that can be used to evaluate the overall impacts of each activity and support decision making. By quantifying the footprint of proposed remedial actions, comparing remedial emissions, transportation emissions water use, material use, and other factors project managers can find the best remediation method with the smallest environmental footprint. This analysis should be combined with other relevant, site cleanup considerations such as implementation, effectiveness, cost, and community acceptance to develop an acceptable environmental cleanup strategy. 

Perform a BMP analysis to identify greener cleanup activities that may help minimize the environmental footprint on a site-specific basis. The BMP analysis should consider NYSDEC’s and EPA’s green remediation BMP fact sheets and select appropriate methods to be incorporated into the environmental cleanup. The ASTM Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups provides direction on how to conduct a BMP analysis. 

Metrics shall be tracked throughout the environmental cleanup to truth test assumptions and assess progress towards GSR goals. Examples of items to be tracked including trucking on and off-site & disposal quantities; Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Air Pollutants; Total Energy Use – and type of Energy (Renewable vs. nonrenewable sources); Water Use and Impacts to Water Resources; Materials Management and Waste Reduction; Land Management and Ecosystems Protections; and other relevant site-specific metrics. Tracked metrics should be included with the following reports, at a minimum: Remedial Investigation Report (or Site Characterization Report), Construction Completion Report, Final Engineering Report, and Periodic Review Report. Implementation of metrics should be included with work plans and design reports.   

In order to assess a proposed remedy’s vulnerability and evaluate measures to increase resilience. The first step is to conduct a climate screening to understand a remedies risk for climate related disasters which includes but is not limited to erosion, flooding, sea level rise, extreme heat and wildfires. More information is provided in the climate screening checklist, which is used during the Feasibility Study phase of a remedy. If potential impacts from climate hazards are identified, a climate vulnerability assessment (CVA) must be conducted. This Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment should consider the reliability of energy, potential for flooding/droughts, increased erosion potential, proximity to water bodies, and any other environmental factors subject to change. If already completed in a previous phase, the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment should be updated as necessary throughout the environmental cleanup.  Therefore, as the site, the climate, and other circumstances change, the CVA can be updated so that it best fits the site's needs.   

An evaluation will be required when a remedy is located in or within a minimum half mile of a DAC. This CLCPA requirement states that all state agencies:

“In considering and issuing permits, licenses, and other administrative approvals and decisions, including but not limited to the execution of grants, loans, and contracts, pursuant to Article 75 of the environmental conservation law, all state agencies, offices, authorities, and divisions shall not disproportionately burden disadvantaged communities as identified pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 75-0101 of the environmental conservation law. All state agencies, offices, authorities, and divisions shall also prioritize reductions of GHG emissions and co-pollutants in disadvantaged communities as identified pursuant to such subdivision 5 of section 75-0101 of the environmental conservation law.”

This evaluation incorporates identification of DACs in the vicinity of the project site, a preliminary screening of the potential impacts for a range of DAC indicators (potentially related to air quality or air-related health effects) resulting from elements of remedial alternatives considered during the FS phase of the project. Projects subject to this policy include sources and activities of a continuing nature associated with any new GHG emission sources that would result in actual increases of GHG and co-pollutants (e.g., traffic, on site emissions from treatment systems).

The following information may also be utilized to implement the procedures outlined herein:

CLCPA 7(3) Addendum for Mobile Emissions (PDF)  

CLCPA Section 7(3) Disproportionate Burden Analysis Worksheet (PDF) 

Disadvantaged Community Assessment Tool 

As part of a disproportionate burden analysis, a remedial party may propose conditions on the project that would serve to address any disproportionate burden caused or contributed to by the proposed action by prioritizing reduction of GHG emissions or co-pollutants in that community. The preliminary screening will consist of the following steps:

1. DER staff will conduct a preliminary screen to identify whether the proposed project is a covered project and is in, or likely to affect, a DAC (e.g., where the project is not located in the DAC but involves off-site GHG emissions or co-pollutant impacts within a DAC in close proximity to the proposed project). Off-site impacts are those that a proposed action may have at a distance from the site based upon modeling. For example, a remedy may impact the air quality of an adjacent or nearby DAC. DER may require additional information to indicate whether the project is in, or likely to affect, a DAC.
2. Spatial data will be used to determine whether the proposed action is in, or likely to affect, a DAC. At a minimum, the impact study area should be the area within a half mile of the facility.
3. If no DAC is identified within the affected area, the proposed project is not likely to affect a DAC, and the administrative process may continue.
4. If a DAC is identified and is located within the affected area as determined above, the proposed action is considered likely to affect the DAC, and the remainder of these procedures will be incorporated into the review process.

A project is likely to affect a DAC if there would be an increase in GHGs or co-pollutants within a DAC caused by the remedial decision, even if the source of the GHGs or co-pollutants is located outside the DAC. DEC may impose conditions on the project or other measures that would serve to address any disproportionate burden in these DACs, including through DEC’s obligation in CLCPA Section 7(3) to prioritize reductions in GHGs and co-pollutants in DACs. Any such project conditions or other measures proposed by a remedial party or imposed by DEC, along with any input from members of the community regarding the proposed project, may be considered in the ultimate determination of whether the project contributes to a disproportionate burden on DAC.

GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR Disproportionate Burden Analysis

Where an action likely to affect a DAC is identified by the preliminary screen, a disproportionate burden analysis will be required, which will include:

• an identification of GHG and co-pollutant emissions from the project affecting the DAC;
• identification of relevant baseline data on existing burdens, including the percentile scores of DAC Indicators used to designate the DAC that are related to air quality and air-related health effects (see the worksheet and tool referenced above);
• an evaluation of how project GHG and co-pollutant emissions would impact the DAC. The evaluation should qualitatively, and to the extent possible quantitatively, explain whether the project’s GHG and co-pollutant emissions could positively or negatively impact air quality and air-related health effects, or other relevant DAC Indicators, resulting from an increase in GHG or co-pollutants from the alternatives; and
• where an increase to an existing burden related to air quality and air-related health effects to the DAC is identified, how the alternatives evaluation is impacted and/or proposed project design considerations including a description of actions to be taken to reduce or eliminate disproportionate burdens associated with GHG or co-pollutant emissions in a selected remedy.

Any project design measures that are used to support a final determination regarding disproportionate burden should result in measurable GHG emissions reduction or co- pollutant emission reduction that is in addition to actions already required by law or regulation and that lessen the burden on the community that has been initially identified to be disproportionately burdened. Further, project design measures must be real, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable. Project design considerations should result in a reduction in GHG and co-pollutant emissions that is at least equivalent to the increases from the project. Accordingly, it may be necessary for the applicant to consider implementation of more than one design consideration.

Some projects subject to Section 7(3) of the CLCPA will also be subject to Section 7(2). Information provided as part of the Section 7(2) analysis can be similarly used to identify project design measures, that also address Section 7(3), as part of the disproportionate burden analysis.

In no specific order, examples of potential project design measures that can be included in remedy selection and design to reduce the disproportionate burden on DACs include, but are not limited to:

• use of electric powered equipment instead of fossil fuel powered equipment, including electric vehicles;
• use of lower emission technologies;
• use of alternative process technologies that would reduce or eliminate GHG emissions or co-pollutants;
• financial mitigation, such as providing funds for GHG or co-pollutant emissions reduction projects in the local DAC;
• operational mitigation, such as limitations on the amount of fossil fuel combusted at the project or the allowable hours of operation for the project;
• designing truck travel routes that avoid or minimize impact to DACs;
• adding electric vehicle charging stations at the facility or in the local DAC;
• including physical mitigation, such as the planting and upkeep of trees, green infrastructure, or other means of carbon sequestration; and
• installation of mitigation measures on treatment system discharges, for example, installing GAC on sub-slab depressurization systems (SSDS) to reduce volatile organic carbons (VOCs) released into the DAC.

Increasing renewable energy not only benefits the local community, but it also decreases reliance on fossil fuels, increases climate resilience and ensures DER is in accordance with the CLCPA mandates. Not only is DER using electric powered machinery during its remediation efforts, DER is also working to install solar and wind energy installations on remediated sites throughout the State. After a contaminated site has been remediated, there is often an Environmental Easement or other restrictive documents placed on the property restricting the use of the land and groundwater on site. Placing renewable energy installations on these properties is not only a great use of the land, but it also helps NYS reach its ambitious climate goals. 

Under the CLCPA its NYS’s goal to include 15,000 megawatts of renewable energy into the grid by 2035. The CLCPA also mandates that NYS reduces its greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2030 and 85% by 2050 from pre-1990 levels. After remediation activities are complete, especially if the site is a former landfill, remedial parties and or municipalities should consider the benefits of renewable energy for the local and statewide community.

DER has developed requirements to facilitate the installation and operation of renewable energy projects in a green and sustainable manner which maintains the environmental cleanup protective of human health and the environment. Entities involved in renewable energy projects on DEC-regulated sites should contact DEC for the latest requirements.