We will analyze New York City's soil and develop a set of standard cleanup remedies appropriate for the city
New soil standards adopted by the State in 2006 significantly reduced the uncertainty around what cleanup measures were required-mostly for land outside New York City. Developed mainly for upstate and suburban conditions, the guidelines can be unreasonable in an urban environment. For example, the standards require cleanups that ensure drinkable groundwater, though only a small area of the city uses groundwater for drinking. These standards are based on rural soil conditions, which have not been affected by the centuries of development that has occurred on urban soil. As a result, the cleanup plans for most in-city sites are developed through a case-by-case negotiation, causing substantial delays. (See case study on page 47: Atlantic Terrace)

While unique scenarios will always arise, we will develop a set of remediation guidelines for the city's most common situations. We will work with State agencies to study our urban soil to document the level of metals and other contaminants found across the five boroughs. This data, which has never been collected, would allow the creation of remedies that protect the health of the public and are tailored to New York City

Finally, we will seek to revise current cleanup standards and policies affecting many New York City brownfields, including:

• Historic fill: In the 19th and 20th centuries, debris and incinerator ash was used to fill in many building sites; it may be present in 20% of the city's land and, since the material was unregulated, much of it may contain some contaminants. While much of it does not pose a public health risk, sites with fill should be eligible for regulatory oversight when redeveloped. When placed under a proper cover, the material can be recycled and safely reused as below-grade material at other construction sites. (See map above: Historic Land Fill)
• Contaminated vapors: On some sites, contaminated vapors rise up out of the soil or ground water, frequently requiring costly blower systems or extensive indoor air quality testing. In some cases it may be appropriate to employ systems using natural winds and temperature changes to affect air flows where they can provide the same level of protection for lower levels of cost, energy consumption, and noise.
• Groundwater: The State requirement to clean up groundwater to drinkable standards makes sense in communities that rely on groundwater for their water supply, but not for most parts of New York City, where the drinking water comes from upstate reservoirs. Standards must be developed that recognize that most parts of New York City do not drink groundwater.
• Dredged sand: Brownfield sites require significant amounts of clean fill to replace whatever contaminated soil is removed, often at high cost. But some materials-such as sand and other material dredged from New York Harbor-could be used instead at a cost as low as $5 per cubic yard; in contrast, clean fill from land sources can cost as much as $40 per cubic yard. Regulations should promote the use of this cheaper fill citywide.

Progress (as of 4/22/08):
Working with the State, the Administration is proposing a study of city soil to determine what concentrations of historic fill exist across the city with the aim of determining how fill material can be best handled when fill sites are redeveloped. The City is discussing the scope and funding mechanisms with interested parties.