Astoria Generating Company, L.P Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 July 17, 2019
RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PRELIMINARY SCOPING STATEMENT
Comment of Mr. Roger Caiazza (June 4, 2019)1
The applicant has proposed two reasonable alternatives for repowering the Gowanus and Narrows peaking turbine facilities and should not be required to consider any other alternatives. Peaking turbines like the Gowanus and Narrows turbines are a critical resource for maintaining reliability to meet the energy needs of New York City. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s proposed regulation, 6 NYCRR Part 227-3 Ozone Season Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Limits for Simple Cycle and Regenerative Combustion Turbines, will require existing turbines in New York City to be controlled or replaced. Since most of the peaking turbines covered by the regulation are approaching the end of their useful life, controlling them is inappropriate, leaving replacement as the only proven option to provide the power necessary to insure reliability. The applicant is making a commitment to replace the Gowanus plant and the Department of Public Service should support this application.
Response:
No response required.
Comments of New York State Department of Public Service (June 26, 2019)
General Comments
1. DPS Staff recommends that the following items should be attached to the Application:
a. Updated Master Stakeholder List/Notification List;
1 This comment is summarized.
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 b. Updated Outreach/Meeting Log – filled in with project activities to date and provide information about consultations with affected agencies, municipalities, and other stakeholders; and
c. The estimated years for the operational life of the project.
Response:
Comment noted. The Master Stakeholder List/Notification List has been updated several times since the commencement of the Article 10 process in December 2018 and filed with the Siting Board as attached to various certificates of service. Similarly, the Outreach/Meeting Log has also been updated, most recently as filed with the Siting Board on June 13, 2019, and served on the parties and those on the Master Stakeholder List/Notification List as part of the Applicant’s Progress Report #2 on June 17, 2019. The Applicant will continue to update these items periodically as necessary and attach the then most recent versions to the Article 10 Application. The Applicant will also include the estimated years for the operational like of the project in the Application.
PSS Appendix A – Exhibit-Specific Comments
Exhibit 2 – Overview and Public Involvement Summary
General Comments
1. DPS Staff recommends this section be split into two subsections – one that discusses public involvement activities in the pre- application phase and one that describes plans for the application, certification, and operation phases. This will clarify what actions have already taken place and what is planned for the future.
Response:
Comment noted. The Applicant will split the Public Involvement Summary into two subsections, one for the pre-application phase and one for the application, certification, and operation phases.
2. The Applicant should consider including Fifth Avenue Committee (fifthave.org) on its stakeholder list. The group appears to be active in the area of the Project.
Response:
2
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
Comment noted. The Applicant will add the Fifth Avenue Committee to its stakeholder list.
3. Additional parties have been added to DMM since the PSS was filed. The stakeholder list should be updated.
Response:
Comment noted. As noted in response to General Comment #1, the Applicant will update the stakeholder list with the recently added parties.
4. The Applicant is advised that they should not include e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of individuals who have become part of the stakeholder list on any documents filed with the Siting Board.
Response:
Comment noted. The Applicant will not include e-mail addresses and telephone number of individuals who have become part of the stakeholder list on any documents filed with the Siting Board and has already corrected previously filed documents that include such information.
Section 2.2 – Summary of Public Involvement
1. The description of the open house events should include additional details such as how and when stakeholders and the public were notified of the events and how many people attended. According to the PIP Plan, copies of the event notice/invitations, distribution lists, and proof of service will be filed with the Secretary. The materials should either be included in an appendix or referenced in the text. The Applicant should identify the social media platforms that were used for the geo-targeted displays and indicate when the ads began.
Response:
Comment noted. The Applicant will include these additional details for Section 2.2 of the Application.. The Application will discuss and/or attach all information and proofs of service that has been formally filed with the Secretary as an Appendix to the Application.
3
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 AGC has issued (and will continue to) issue letters and/or email notifications to all known stakeholders on the Notification List about each major milestone and filing, as well as a notification at least 14 days prior to any public meeting. For two public information meetings thus far, and for one DPS order (as directed), AGC has published formal notices in seven (7) newspapers including publication of general circulation in Brooklyn, local papers and Spanish and Chinese language newspapers.
In addition, for the public meetings, flyers have been and will continue to be prepared in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Arabic, and distributed throughout the study area, including subway entrances, commercial businesses and houses of worship. Lastly, AGC uses social media to place geo-targeted displays (532,000 ad views for the March 5, 2019, meetings) and Facebook ads covering a 1-mile radius around both the Gowanus and Narrows facilities, which are intended to reach approximately 140,000 people.
AGC has prepared (and will continue to) prepare educational materials as needed to inform the public about the Project and the environmental review and permitting process. These materials (e.g., fact sheets, brochures and progress reports) have been and will continue to be forwarded to stakeholders via mail or email (as requested). Educational materials have been and will be distributed at public meetings, stakeholder engagements, the Project website (www.repoweringbrooklyn.com), and at four repositories at Community Board 7 and local libraries within the study area.
AGC provides language accessibility as is required by 16 NYCRR §1000.4(d). Notifications and educational material, as well as the availability of translators at meetings, will be provided in Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, American Sign Language, and other languages as may become necessary.
2. The Applicant refers to multiple instances where letters and emails were sent to stakeholders regarding project milestones. The Meeting Log should be updated to include those interactions. In addition, issues and/or concerns raised at the public events like the project announcement meetings should be summarized and documented in the Meeting Log.
Response:
Comment noted. As noted in response to General Comment #1, the Applicant has and will continue to update the Meeting Log to include such interactions. In addition, Applicant has submitted two “Progress Reports” regarding meetings and attendance and outlining project milestones.
3. The Applicant should note any public involvement activities that were conducted to date or planned to address environmental justice communities and notify them of the project, outreach activities, milestones, etc.
4
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 Response:
Comment noted. All of Applicant’s public involvement activities have been designed to reach out to environmental justice communities to address issues of concern within such communities. The Applicant will include in its Application such public involvement activities that were conducted to date or those planned to address environmental justice communities including notification efforts, outreach activities, milestones, and other relevant information.
4. DPS Staff recommends that the Applicant briefly describe planned public involvement activities associated with the application, certification and operation phases of the project. The section should discuss the filing of the Project Application, e.g. service of the application and mailing notice of the submittal to the updated stakeholders list, including adjacent landowners and additional addresses received through public outreach. The notice will include information on the project generally and the Article 10 Application specifically. A copy of the mailing list and documentation indicating the dates and mailings that were made should be provided to the Secretary.
Response:
Comment noted. As noted above in several responses, the Applicant will include this information in its Application.
5. DPS Staff notes that this exhibit must also summarize any changes to the Project as a result of public input.
Response:
Comment noted. Exhibit 2 of the Application will summarize any changes to the Project as a result of public input.
Exhibit 3 – Location of Facilities
1. PSS Figure 3 – Preliminary Conceptual Site Plan – indicates that Item. No. 5 – Warehouse (60’ X 100’)” is not indicated on the Site Plan. The Application must provide the intended location of all major Facilities components.
Response:
Comment noted. Please see attached hereto as Appendix A the revised Site General Arrangement drawing SSK-GO-002 revision A (revised Figure 3 from PSS). The warehouse has been replaced by a 42’x22’ (less than 1000 sq. ft.) Equipment Shelter. The
5
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 Equipment Shelter will house the Demineralized Water Forwarding Pumps and Electrical Equipment to support the new equipment located on the South Pier. The Site General Arrangement drawing SSK-GO-002 also located all major components.
2. PSS Figure 8 – Gowanus Site Survey – is presented at a scale that includes labels that are too small to be legible. DPS requests that the Applicant propose for scoping purposes, the specific map scales and formats that will be used to present mapping information in the Application.
Response:
Comment noted. The Site Survey drawings are Size E+ (36”x48”). When printed at the intended size, the text and scale are legible. The Applicant will submit full sized drawings with the hard copies of the Application required by DPS regulations.
Exhibit 4 – Land Use
Section 4.4.8 – Proposed Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures
1. The PSS indicates that “[t]o the extent practicable, green design measures (including potentially PV technology) for the Project will be discussed in the Article 10 Application” (PSS, pg. 4-13). This statement is not clear as to the intended analysis: if the proposal is to study an alternative solar generating facility design, then that alternative analysis should be addressed in detail in the context of Exhibit 9 – Alternatives.
Response:
Comment noted. Page 2-4 of the PSS further explained the comment regarding the use of PV technology. As explained in the PSS, the Project will continue to provide critical quick start capabilities and improve from a less than 15-minute start time to a less than 10- minute start time. Black start capabilities for this Project will be provided by storage batteries instead of the current conventional diesel-powered engines. The batteries also will provide power for station operation totaling approximately 3 MW. AGC is exploring the use of photovoltaic (PV) technology to assist in powering the battery facility. The potential use of PV is solely to charge the proposed batteries. The Application will include further detail and analysis regarding this proposal and the site plan will detail the available space of the South Pier to support the PV to charge the batteries. Also see response to Comment 1 for Exhibit 9 below.
Exhibit 5 – Electric System Effects
6
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 Section 4.5.1 – Existing Facility
1. Page 4.14 states that the new 138 kV breakers will be installed on each barge for feeders between the new gas turbine and the Point of Interconnection (POI) using a new Gas Insulated Substation (GIS). The turbines will connect through the GIS following a common Generator Step-Up (GSU) transformer, transition to the shore via new open-wire dead-end structures, and then transition to the reconductored feeders. The Application should clarify who will be responsible for the operation, inspection, and maintenance requirements of all those components.
Response:
Comment noted. The Applicant is responsible for the continued operations and maintenance of both the existing feeders and any new feeders to be installed between the power barges and the point of interconnection (POI), which includes the GIS, GSU and associated equipment. All other equipment is owned and operated by Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc (Con Ed), located at the Gowanus Substation adjacent to the Gowanus Generating Station. This will be clarified in the Application.
Section 4.5.2 – Proposed Content of Article 10 Application
1. The Application must include a System of Reliability Impact Study (SRIS) conducted by NYISO. The SRS should include:
a. The new electric interconnection between the facility and the POI;
b. The cost of any system upgrades that are required; and
c. The expected in-service date and the commercial operation date of the facility.
Response:
Comment noted. The SRIS is being performed by the NYISO and will be included in the Application, which will include items a, b, and c above.
Exhibit 8 – Electric System Production Modeling
Section 4.8.1 – Proposed Content of Article 10 Application
7
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
1. DPS Staff requests that the Applicant consult John Cary at DPS regarding the content of Exhibit 8. He can be contacted at (518)-486-2892 or by email at [email protected].
Response:
Comment noted. The Applicant and it consultant, Charles River Associates (CRA), met with the DPS staff and, particularly, Mr. Cary regarding the requirements of Exhibit 8 on June 25, 2019. CRA continued discussions with Mr. Cary by phone. Based on those discussions, on July 15, 2019, the Applicant submitted to Mr. Cary for review the requested spreadsheet which includes the input assumptions and modeling parameters to be incorporated into the modeling effort. After review of the submission, Mr. Cary provided additional comments and suggested further follow-up with DPS staff. The Applicant will make any necessary modification and the production modeling protocol with be finalized through the Article 10 Stipulation process.
2. Note that the study year for the modeling simulations will be determined during consultation with DPS Staff. However, DPS Staff will need to discuss input assumptions and modeling parameters before a study year can be agreed upon.
Response:
Comment noted. Based on discussions with DPS staff at the meeting on June 25 and with Mr. Cary thereafter, it is the Applicant’s understanding the study year agreed upon is 2024.
Exhibit 9 – Alternatives
1. See comment for Exhibit 4.
Response:
Comment noted. As mentioned above, the potential use of PV technology discussed in the PSS would be used to assist in charging the proposed batteries to be used for black start capability. Consistent with the Siting Board regulations at 16 NYCRR § 1001.9, the alternatives analysis outlined in the PSS identified and described the two alternative that are reasonable, available and feasible considering the objectives and capabilities of the Applicant. While neither DPS nor DEC has asked the Applicant to evaluate the availability of renewable energy or energy storage as an alternative to the preferred alternative, in response to comments from UPROSE (awarded intervenor funding), the Applicant will consider the reasonable availability, feasibility and capability of renewable
8
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 energy or energy storage, to be located solely on the Gowanus and Narrows properties in Sunset Park, as an alternative to the preferred project, in view of the reliability and resiliency requirements of the area. The Applicant already noted in the PSS that it was exploring an energy storage project at the Narrows facility outside the Article 10 process in conjunction with the Con Ed Request for Proposal for Battery Storage. The final RFP was released on July 15, 2019, and solicits up to 300 MW of storage projects. The procurement RFP establishes substantial systems and operational requirements for eligibility of the projects (section 2.5.1) and indicates that the procurement may be limited by available funding (footnote 3).
The Applicant has also reviewed the results of the recent study prepared by NYSERDA and released by the Public Service Commission on July 1, 2019 (“The Potential for Energy Storage to Repower or Replace Peaking Units in New York State”) and will consider the report’s analysis and conclusions in our evaluation. The NYSEDRA report is encouraging with respect to its findings regarding the future use of energy storage in the mix of energy resources within the City but is also supportive of a project like the Gowanus Repowering Project. As discussed above, the Applicant will evaluate the availability and feasibility of the use renewable energy or energy storage at the Gowanus and Narrows facilities as an alternative to the preferred alternative. The details of the evaluation process will be developed and finalized during the Article 10 Stipulation process.
2. The statement of the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives should include discussion of a smaller scale generating facility that would reduce project impacts and footprint.
Response:
Comment noted. The Applicant believes the scale of its proposed project (no greater than 590 MW which translates to approximately 517 MW in summer) is reasonable and necessary to meet reliability and resiliency requirements of the area and load pocket. It is anticipated that the proposed alternative will not demonstrate any substantial adverse impacts (including disproportionate impacts). If any such impacts are identified, mitigation measures will be proposed which may include reduced scale, if appropriate.
Exhibit 12 – Construction
Section 4.12.1 – Potential Construction Impacts
1. The Application should assess any potential impacts from Project construction on commercial shipping vessel traffic in the Gowanus Bay and Gowanus Canal. The Application should also evaluate potential impacts of Project construction on traffic
9
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 and planned dredging and remediation activities for the Gowanus Canal Superfund site. The Application should consider whether Project construction may be affected by planned cleanup operations of the canal.
Response:
Comment noted. The Application will assess any potential impacts from the Project construction on commercial shipping vessel traffic in the Gowanus Bay and Gowanus Canal. It is not anticipated that the Project will impact planned remediation of the Gowanus Canal Superfund site as the last phase of remediation is expected to be July 2020, however, the Application will evaluate such in further detail.
Section 4.12.2 – Contents of Article 10 Application
1. The Complaint Resolution Plan should include details on the process to file a complaint (i.e. written, electronic and oral) and how and when the process will be communicated to the public.
a. The Plan should describe the complaint process from time of receipt, verification, resolution development, implementation and confirmation of resolution, including anticipated timeframes and actions the Applicant will take if the complaint remains unresolved after these steps are taken;
b. The Plan should also identify any unique procedures based on complaint type or project phase (e.g. construction); and
c. The Applicant will maintain a complaint log listing all complaints and resolutions during construction and operations of the Project and the Plan will include a procedure for review and transmittal of the complaint log to DPS Staff.
Response:
Comment noted: The Application will elaborate on a Complaint Resolution Plan that will include the details listed in a, b, and c above.
2. DPS Staff recommends that this section include information about when and how the Applicant will communicate with Stakeholders about construction activities, schedule and applicable safety and security measures.
Response:
10
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
Comment noted. As discussed above, the Application has and will continue to present information on how the Applicant will communicate with Stakeholders about construction activities and security measures. Applicant will continue to provide “Progress Reports” to Stakeholders and the Project website will be maintained and updated throughout construction and implementation of Project. Please note that access to the Project site is prohibited and the Facility Security Plan is overseen by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and such plan is protected for Homeland Security purposes under 49 CFR Part 1520.
Exhibit 13 – Real Property
1. See comment for Exhibit 3.
Response:
Comment noted: As discussed above, the Site Survey drawings are Size E+ (36”x48”). When printed at the intended size, the text and scale are legible. Full size copies will be provided with the hard copies of the Application.
Exhibit 14 – Cost of Facilities
1. In addition to the total cost of the facilities, the application should include the non-binding good faith estimates of the System Upgrade facilities (SUF) and the connecting Transmission Owner Attachment facilities (CTO-AF); however, they are expected to be provided as part of the SRIS study by NYISO.
Response:
Comment noted. The SRIS will include the non-binding good faith estimates of the SUF and CTO-AF. The SRIS will be included in the Application.
Exhibit 15 – Public Health and Safety
Section 4.15 – Public Health and Safety
1. 16 NYCRR §1001.15 requires that the Applicant provide “[a] statement and evaluation that identifies, describes, and discusses all potential significant adverse impacts of the construction and operation of the facility, the interconnections, and
11
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 related facilities on the environment, public health, and safety, at a level of detail that reflects the severity of the impacts and the reasonable likelihood of their occurrence …” DPS Staff requests that the evaluation of relevant publications that discuss potential health effects from noise be included in the Application. At a minimum, this should include review of the following references: a. Guidelines for Community Noise WHO (1999);
b. Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, WHO 2009;
c. Environmental Noise Guidelines, WHO 2018; and
d. Annex D of ANSI standard S12.9-2005/Part 4 (Sounds with strong low-frequency content) for minimization of annoyance from low frequency sounds.
Response:
Comment noted. In the PSS, the Applicant identified that there are multiple public health benefits associated with the Gowanus Repowering Project given it is replacing older 1970's era less efficient dual fuel generation with new, modern, more efficient natural gas generation equipped with air emissions controls while also retiring 370 MW of fossil-fueled generation (50 MW from Gowanus and 320 MW from the Narrows). In addition, the Applicant anticipates that the new modern equipment will result in lower sound emissions from the Gowanus site. As such, the severity and likelihood of adverse impacts related to noise is low. The Application will include a discussion of the community sound levels that would result from result from the installation and operation of modern generating equipment.
Exhibit 18 – Safety and Security
Section 4.18.2 – Proposed Content of Article 10 Application
1. The updated Emergency Response Plans should include specific protocols for notifying different members of the public (e.g. emergency responders, landowners, utilities, environmental agencies, etc.) in the event of an emergency, including the timeframes for notification and the planned methods (e.g. telephone, radio, text alert, etc.).
Response:
12
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 Comment noted. The existing Facility Response Plans include specific protocols for notifying different members of the public in the event of an emergency. The Application will include a copy of the draft Facility Response Plans, modified as necessary, which may be submitted under confidentiality pursuant to 49 CFR Part 1520 as further discussed below.
2. The Applicant should identify the local emergency responders that will be consulted during the review of the existing safety security plan. A final copy of the plan should be provided to these entities.
Response:
Comment noted. The Gowanus facility is overseen by the USCG and the safety and security plans are considered “Sensitive Security Information” and protected under 49 CFR part 1520. The only agencies permitted to review such plans are the USCG and the EPA. However, the Applicant will meet with local emergency responders to the extent permitted while maintaining confidentiality. The Application will identify such local emergency responders. The Applicant already has a significant working relationship with FDNY.
Exhibit 19 – Noise and Vibration
Section 4.19 – Noise and Vibration
1. Section 4.19.3 States that “[c]urrently, it is understood that four noise standards may be applicable to the Project. These include New York State Noise Guidelines (DEP-00-1), City Noise Ordinance (Section 24-232 and 24-218), City Zoning Resolution (Section 42-213 and 214), and the City Environmental Quality Review Manual (Chapter 3R).” DPS Staff would like to continue with discussions of details and applicability of the proposed standards during the stipulation phase.
Response:
Comment noted. The Applicant’ noise consultant has contacted DPS staff to discuss the requirements for Exhibit 19, and will continue to consult with DPS staff regarding the applicable regulatory requirements before and during the stipulation process.
2. Section 4.19.3 (a) requires that the Applicant file a map of the study area showing the location of sensitive sound receptors within one-mile of the Project. Receptors should also be evaluated in areas where the environmental justice minority percentage is exceeded.
Response:
13
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
Comment noted. The Application will include a map depicting the location of sensitive sound receptors within one-mile of the Project as well as areas where the environmental justice minority percentage is exceeded.
3. Section 4.19.3 (b) Ambient pre-construction baseline noise conditions:
a. This paragraph states that the Applicant wishes to remove the requirement to collect measurement data in both winter and summer seasons and would like to use data that has already been collected. DPS Staff advises that the winter and summer pre-construction measurements are required as indicated in 16 NYCRR §1001.19 (b).
Response:
Comment noted. The Applicant will consult with DPS Staff regarding the pre-construction measurements and will provide to and review with DPS Staff available information from the previously approved sound analysis at Gowanus from the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the South Pier Improvement Project.
b. DPS Staff requests that a map of the proposed Ambient Noise monitoring locations be provided as soon as possible for DPS consideration of adequacy of baseline survey locations.
Response:
Comment noted. See response above under Comments 2 and 3.a.
c. DPS also requests the applicant to provide DPS Staff with details and results of the measurements already conducted.
Response:
Comment noted. See response above under Comments 2 and 3.a.
d. The Application should include standards for the determination of any pre-existing tones. DPS Staff recommends use of the definition for “prominent tones” as included in Annex C of ANSI Standard S12.9-2005/Part 4.
Response:
14
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
Comment noted: The Applicant agrees to determine presence of "prominent tones" consistent with Annex C of ANSI Standard S12.9- 2005/Part 4 in the Application.
e. If prominent tones are present, the noise studies should determine whether they originated within the existing facility.
Response:
Comment noted. See response above under Comment 3.e.
f. Tones Impact Criteria: ANSI Standard S12.9-2005/Part 4, as well as many Community Noise Response methodologies, include a 5-dBA correction if predominant tones are present.
Response:
Comment noted. See response above under Comment 3.e.
g. The Application should include noise survey protocols for determination of pre-construction ambient/background noise levels. These should include at a minimum, testing locations, acceptable testing times of day, acceptable weather conditions, operating scenarios, instrumentation requirements, calibration reports, and proposed data collection. DPS Staff also recommends reporting sound level meter settings, noise metrics, noise descriptors to be collected, and test durations.
Response:
Comment noted. See responses above under Comments 3.a. and 3.d.
h. DPS Staff recommends that all sound instrumentation comply with applicable ANSI standards as follows:
i. Sound level meters should be type 1, complying with ANSI Standards S1.4-1983(R2006) and S1.43-1997 (R2007).
Response:
15
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
Comment noted. The Applicant intends to consult with DPS Staff regarding the pre-construction measurements and concurs that additional sound measurements, if required, would utilize modern digital Type 1 sound level meters and Class 1 field calibrators (e.g., Larson Davis 831 and Larson Davis CAL200).
ii. Acoustical sensitivity for Sound Level Meters (field calibration) should be checked by using coupler-type calibrators complying with ANSI Standard S1.40 2006 (R 2011) and as specified by the applicable parts of ANSI S12.9 standards.
Response:
Comment noted. See response above under Comment h.i.
iii. Any band filter should comply with ANSI Standard S1.11 2004(R2009).
Response:
Comment noted. See response above under Comment h.i.
iv. Certificates of calibration for all sound level meters, microphones, calibrators and band filters should be included showing that they were calibrated by the manufacturer or qualified laboratory within one year of the dates of any noise survey.
Response:
Comment noted. The certificates of calibration for the previous Gowanus sound study will be provided in the Application. Should additional sound measurements be required, those calibration certificates will also be included in the Application.
v. Photos showing the location of sound level meters should be included for each measurement location. Comments about whether or not main noise sources are visible from sound microphone locations should be included.
Response:
16
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
Comment noted. The Applicant concurs that photos and a narrative description of additional monitoring locations will be submitted with additional measurements in the Application.
vi. GPS coordinates for measurement locations should be reported.
Response:
Comment noted. The Applicant will provide coordinates for measurement locations in UTM NAD 83 meters (or other standard datum in consultation with DPS Staff) in the Application.
vii. The PSS should mention how prevailing meteorological conditions will be determined when performing any noise survey. ANSI Standards S12.9-1992/Part 2, §6.3 and S12.9-2013/Part 3, §6.3 allow for obtaining weather conditions from nearby public or private meteorological stations.
Response:
Comment noted. The Applicant intends to utilize publicly available meteorological data which may be supplemented by on-site meteorological data collection in the Application.
4. Section 4.19.3 (g): Noise standards applicable to the facility. The Application should specify the standards and protocols that will be followed for determination of ambient, construction, or operational noise levels. DPS Staff recommends that noise surveys be performed by following the most recent versions of ANSI/ASA Standards. Long-term duration noise surveys should follow ANSI Standard S12.9-1992 Part 2 R (2013).
Response:
Comment noted. See responses above under Comments 3.a. and 3.d.
5. The computer noise modeling values used for the major noise producing components of the facility shall fairly match the unique operational noise characteristics of the particular equipment models and configurations proposed for the facility. DPS Staff would like to continue the discussion of modeling parameters with the parties during stipulation phase. DPS Staff recommends the following:
17
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
a. Noise levels should be modeled at the worst operational noise conditions, as required by Exhibit 19(f)(4) - (6).
Response:
Comment noted. The Applicant’s sound modeling to be submitted in the Application will include the anticipated worst case operational noise condition of simultaneous full load operation the eight generating units (590 MW) as this condition may occur 10% of the year.
b. The Application should identify the computer software propagation standard. Staff recommends the use of three- dimensional (3D) computer noise modeling software’s that follow the International Standard ISO 9613, Part 2 or ANSI/ASA Standard S12.62-2012 for outdoor noise propagation.
Response:
Comment noted. The Applicant intends to utilize International Standard ISO 9613, Part 2 as implemented in the three-dimensional CadnaA model by DataKustik GmbH. Ground factor for pavement and water, the primary surface type in the project vicinity, would be evaluated as G=0, hard ground. Atmospheric absorption is intended to be evaluated consistent with ISO 9613, Part 1 for 10 degrees Celsius and 70 percent relative humidity.
Exhibit 20 – Cultural Resources
1. The PSS states the “existing stacks at the facility will be increased by approximately 40-60 feet as part of the project design” (PSS, pg. 4-50). This statement is confusing and implies that modification of existing generation facilities may be under consideration as an alternative to replacement of existing facilities. DPS requests clarification of this point.
Response:
Comment noted. The existing stack height is approximately 56.5’ above water line. Under the current expected design, the new stacks will be arranged in a 2 x 2 matrix. The stack centerline to stack centerline dimensions as currently anticipated will be 92’-0” (generally east to west) and 50’-0” (generally north to south). Please see the attached in Appendix B. The new stacks are expected to be, preliminarily, 120’ above the waterline. Therefore, the new stack height is expected to be increased approximately 63.5’from the existing stake heights. Modification of the existing facilities is not under consideration, rather the statement in the PSS was used to
18
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 show the comparison in height from the existing stack height to the proposed new stack height after the existing is removed. Please note that the dimensions provided are preliminary and final stake height will not be determined until later in the project design process. The then most current data will be included in the Application.
Section 4.20.4(3) – Proposed Content of the Application
1. The PSS indicates that a “Phase 1B study is not anticipated to be required and is not proposed to be included in the Article 10 Application” (PSS, pg. 4-51). DPS Staff requests that the Applicant report the status of consultations with OPRHP-SHPO staff in regard to the need for a Phase 1B cultural resources study.
Response:
Comment noted. The Applicant will conduct consultations with OPRHP-SHPO staff during the proposed Supplemental Phase 1A study. Based on consultations and the results of the Supplemental Phase 1A study, it will be determined if a Phase 1B study is required. The assumption that a Phase IB study would not be required is based on the results of consultation and the previous Phase IA study conducted at Gowanus Generating Station. If a Phase 1B study is required, it will be conducted at that time and included in the Application.
2. If a Phase 1B is recommended by OPRHP-SHPO, then DPS Staff requests further modification of the proposed scope to indicate the Application will include the results of that study.
Response:
Comment noted: If a Phase 1B study is required, then the results of that study will be included in the Article 10 Application.
3. The scope of recommended studies should be specified in the final scope of studies for Exhibit 20.
Response:
Comment noted. The scope and methodology of the recommended studies will be included in the final reports and discussed in the Article 10 Application. All reports will be included as attachments to the Article 10 Application.
Exhibit 21 – Geology, Seismology and Soils
19
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
Section 4.21.3 – Potential Impacts
1. According to page 4-53 of the PSS, pile driving may be required to the extent spud beams are replaced and the demineralized water tank on South Pier need piling. The Application should include an assessment of pile driving vibrational impacts on nearby building foundations and underground structures. Pre- and post-construction impact monitoring should be described, as well as procedures for notifying nearby property owners and building occupants.
Response:
Comment noted. For the purposes of the Article 10 Application and based on the most recent design, it is assumed that some pile- driving will be required on the South Pier. Therefore, the Article 10 Application will include an impact assessment of vibrations on nearby building foundations and underground structures. Pre- and post-construction impact monitoring protocol and procedures for notifying nearby property owners will be described.
The Geotechnical Evaluation Report developed for the Gowanus facility developed by French and Parrello Associates, P.A. (Document FPA No. 07G126ARI, dated January 23, 2008, was used as the reference for the required piling for the South Pier. The report provides the following evaluation which will be utilized for the project and detailed in the Application:
Construction Vibrations from Pile Driving: It is anticipated that the installation of the proposed piling will be accomplished using a pneumatic impact hammer. The installation of the proposed foundation piling may induce vibrations within the subsoils that may cause damage to existing building structures and underground utilities. The generally accepted safe limit for particle velocities on new structures is 2.0 in/sec. This value is reduced for old structures in poor and very poor conditions to 1.0 in/sec and 0.5 in/sec, respectively. The generally accepted safe limit on underground utility pipelines is 5.0 in/sec. Particle velocity is a function of the square root of the hammer energy (E) divided by the distance (D) from the vibration source to the point of interest, and may be estimated as follows:
V = 0.15 {E1/2/D}1.5 (in/sec) Where E is in foot-pounds and D is in feet.
It is anticipated that hammers utilized on the project will have energy ratings of approximately 26,500 foot-pounds to 32,000 foot- pounds. Based on evaluation of potential particle velocities generated by such hammers, the areas of greatest concern on existing building structures are those areas located within 50 feet of the vibration source. Beyond such a distance, evaluation indicates that
20
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 particle velocities would be on the order of 0.5 in/sec or less, which indicates that structural damage should not occur. The project specifications will include provisions for predrilling of the piles to mitigate vibrations, if required, and a pre-construction survey of existing structures will be considered in order to delineate structures that may be susceptible to damage from ground vibrations. Additionally, vibration monitoring will be performed during the installation of the piles and that a vibration threshold limit of 2 in/sec. be established for building structures at the project site, if required. A vibration threshold of 5 in/sec. should be established for underground utility pipelines. At present, there are no existing structures within 50 feet of the proposed areas where pile driving may occur.
2. According to page 4-53 of the PSS, “trenching would result in balanced cut/fill as the trench will be backfilled with the same fill material excavated.” The Application should describe measures for screening and testing excavated soils for contamination, describe criteria and methods for evaluating the suitability of excavated materials for re-use as fill, and describe processes for handling, storage, and disposal of excavated materials that cannot be re-used as fill.
Response:
Comment noted. It is anticipated that some trenching for the updated feeder cables may be required, and the Article 10 Application will include a description for screening/testing soils for contamination and the criteria for evaluating the suitability for reuse as backfill. If the soils are determined to be contaminated, the criteria and methods for the proper handling, storage, and disposal of material will be detailed. After consultation with the City Department of Environmental Protection regarding the water line, the Applicant now believes that the water line will not have to be updated. However, should that change and trenching also be required with respect to the water line, the soil management plan with be the same as for the feeder cable upgrade.
If required, an environmental testing service will be hired by the Applicant to perform a survey of existing soil conditions to identify any contaminants in accordance with state regulations and to perform testing for suitability of backfill materials prior to and during use, visual observations, laboratory testing of materials and field testing to assure compliance of materials and placement procedures in accordance with design drawings and project specifications. A materials testing plan will be developed to determine testing frequencies and locations within the project site. Suitable utility bedding and backfill material will meet all the requirements specified by the New York Department of Transportation Standard Highway Specifications and will be free from materials such as organics, cinders, recycled concrete, soft, viable, expansive or other deleterious materials. All contaminated soils and unsuitable material will be disposed offsite at a legal offsite disposal area approved by the state Department of Environmental Conservation. All suitable backfill materials shall be temporarily stored on site in accordance with all applicable State and local requirements.
Section 4.21.4 – Proposed Content of Article 10 Application
21
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
1. Page 4-56 of the PSS states it is anticipated that geotechnical boring conducted in 2008 will be satisfactory to analyze potential Project impacts. The results of the 2008 geotechnical investigations and any additional geotechnical investigations performed prior to the filing of the Application, including copies of boring logs and any reports summarizing the results and findings, should be included as an appendix to the Application. If additional geotechnical investigations will be performed prior to the commencement of Project construction, the Application should include a description of planned studies.
Response:
Comment noted. The Applicant does not anticipate that any further geotechnical investigations will be necessary. The 2008 geotechnical reports will be provided, and the results discussed as part of the Article 10 Application. However, the Application will provided for supplemental geotechnical investigations prior to project installation should they be necessary for final design.
Exhibit 24 – Visual Impacts
Section 4.24.2 – Potential Impacts
1. The PSS states that the “VIA will be prepared in a manner consistent with DEC Visual Policy and in coordination with DPS, DEC, and OPRHP where appropriate” (PSS, pg. 4.69). DPS Staff advises that while the DEC policy provides some guidance in terms of visual resource categories, and lists mitigation measures that may be appropriate, the Article 10 regulations in 16 NYCRR 1001.24 spell out the appropriate methodology and include details not included in the DEC policy.
Response:
Comment noted. The VIA will be prepared according to the requirements under Article 10 and supplemented with DEC visual policy guidance as appropriate. If there is a conflict between Article 10 regulatory requirements and DEC guidance, the requirements under Article 10 will supersede.
Section 4.24.3 – Proposed Content of Article 10 Application
1. Any visual stakeholders identified through the Viewpoint Selection process should be added to the master stakeholder list. In addition, the Applicant should describe how comments will be gathered and incorporated into the final visual impact report.
22
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 DPS Staff recommends that the Applicant consider hosting an in-person meeting of the visual stakeholders during the viewshed analysis process.
Response:
Comment noted. As discussed above, the Stakeholder List (Notification List) is being updated throughout the Article 10 Process. Due to the location and highly urban setting of the project, every stakeholder identified on the stakeholder list is considered a visual stakeholder. Given the location of the Gowanus facility, it is anticipated that visual impacts will be limited. However, to the extent necessary, the Applicant will make information regarding the visual analysis process available to the visual stakeholders during the study process through mailings and on the project websites, and at meetings with stakeholders, as requested.
2. Section 4.24.3(9) lists “shadow flicker” as a related operational effect of the facility to be studied. DPS Staff advises that shadow flicker is an effect related to wind turbine operation and is not applicable for this scope of studies.
Response:
Comment noted. Shadow flicker is not applicable to this type of project and will not be evaluated for the Article 10 Application.
Exhibit 27 – Socioeconomic Effects
Section 4.27.3 – Proposed Content of Article 10 Application
1. The Applicant should rely as much as possible on the actual number of jobs budgeted for the Project, as well as the Applicant’s prior industry experience with similarly situated projects. A range of estimates should be presented to reflect the uncertainty associated with possibly multiplier-based secondary impact estimates.
Response:
Comment noted. As discussed in the PSS, the barge mounted turbines are being purchased turnkey as part of an Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract. They will be constructed out of New York and delivered for installation. An estimated construction schedule will be developed for the Balance of Plant construction activities. This schedule will be manpower loaded in order to develop manpower curves and an estimated number of jobs required for the Balance of Plant portion of the project. Such information will be provide in the Application.
23
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
2. The Application should include a commitment by the Applicant to track and report the actual number of direct jobs created during the construction and operational phases of the Project, as well as the tax payments to local jurisdictions made during the course of the Project; and that the Applicant will make available any workpapers associated with its socioeconomic impact estimates.
Response:
Comment noted. The Applicant will require the General Work Contractor responsible for performing the Balance of Plant construction activities to track and report the actual number of direct jobs created during the construction and phase of the Project, as well as any tax payments to local jurisdictions made during the course of the Project.
Exhibit 28 – Environmental Justice
1. This section should reference the actions the Applicant described in Exhibit 2 regarding outreach to the Environmental Justice communities.
Response:
Comment noted. The Application will summarize all outreach activities the Applicant has undertaken in the community. The extensive outreach efforts have been directed at the potentially impacted environmental justice community within the Study Area. Prior to commencing the Article 10 process, the Applicant met with UPROSE (recently awarded local intervenor finding) to review the proposed project and discuss concerns. Additional outreach activities have included and will continue to include letters, progress reports and/or email notifications to all known stakeholders on the Notification List about each major milestone and filing, as well as a notification at least 14 days prior to public meetings, of which two were held on March 5, 2019, and the two will be held on July 18, 2019.
For public meetings, the Applicant has published formal notice in seven (7) newspapers including one of general circulation in Brooklyn, local newspapers, and Spanish and Chinese language newspapers. In addition, flyers have been and will continue to be prepared in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Arabic, and distributed throughout the study area, including subway entrances, commercial businesses and houses of worship. The Applicant also utilizes social media to place geo-targeted displays (532,000 ad views for the March 5, 2019, meetings) and Facebook ads covering a 1-mile radius around both the Gowanus and Narrows facilities, which are intended to reach approximately 140,000 people.
24
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
The Applicant has prepared (and will continue to) prepare educational materials as needed to inform the public about the Project and the environmental review and permitting process. These materials (e.g., fact sheets and progress reports) have been and will be mailed to stakeholders via mail or email. Educational materials have been and will also be distributed at public meetings, stakeholder engagements, the Project website (www.repoweringbrooklyn.com), and at four document repositories.
The Applicant has provided and will provide language accessibility as is required by 16 NYCRR §1000.4(d). Notifications and educational material, as well as the availability of translators at meetings, will be provided in Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, American Sign Language, and other languages as may become necessary.
Exhibit 29 – Site Restoration and Decommissioning
1. The Applicant’s decommissioning plan should include methods for notifying municipalities/boroughs and landowners, prior to start of decommissioning activities, including timing of such notifications. DPS Staff recommends that the Applicant should add notification for restoration activities as well.
Response:
Comment noted. The Application will discuss the decommissioning plan in further detail. As discussed in the PIP Plan and PSS, and decommissioning activities will be subject to regulatory requirements for notice to the PSC and the NYISO prior to shut-down. See Commission Order Adopting Notice Requirements for Generation Unit Retirements, Case 05-E-0889.
2. The PSS does not provide information regarding the decommissioning of existing barges and generating units at the Facility site that would be removed and replaced by the proposed new Facilities, other than stating the they will be “disconnected and removed from the site... [and] sold and scraped or repurposed” (PSS, pg. 4-87). The scope of studies should be expanded to address the responsible decommissioning and disposition of those units.
Response:
Comment noted. See above answer regarding decommissioning notice requirements. The Application will provide detail on decommissioning and removal of existing barges. Given the unique nature of the barges and flexibility of disconnecting and removing them from NYS waters, the required study will be minimal and potential impacts are not anticipated. 25
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
Exhibit 31 – Local Laws and Ordinances
1. The PSS does not include consideration or description of the specifications and design requirements for barge-mounted generating facilities to be constructed at an off-site location and delivered to the Facility Site for interconnection. DPS requests that the Applicant review this matter and revise, as appropriate:
a. The list of New York City Permits and Approvals for the Installation and Operation of the Facility; and
b. Identification of specific code requirements for Facility components that will be installed and operated within the City of New York.
Response:
Comment noted. A list of required New York City permits were included in the PSS. However, the local regulatory requirements will be reviewed and supplemented as necessary in the Application. The Application will include non-proprietary information regarding the specifications of the barge mounted turbines, which will comply with all applicable USCG regulations and standards of the American Bureau of Shipping.
Exhibit 32 – State Laws and Ordinances
1. DPS Staff advises that the Siting Board will review and make findings regarding Coastal Consistency pursuant to 19 NYCRR §600.
Response:
Comment noted. The Application will contain a review of Coastal Zone Management policies that are applicable to the project. During stakeholder outreach with NYC Mayor’s office and with NYC Department of City Planning (DCP), the DCP indicated that it would be the lead agency in reviewing and issuing a decision on Coastal Consistency under the City’s Waterfront Revitalization Program.
Exhibit 34 – Electrical Interconnection
26
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 Section 4.34.2 – Proposed Content of the Application
1. The Applicant shall describe the underground cable lines, in detail, specifically the Application should provide the technical specifications and product construction of the new Cross-Linked Polyethylene (XLPE) cables and describe how the conductor cables will be arranged in the cable conduit.
Response:
Comment noted. There will be two feeders per barge for a total of four. To meet the required cable ampacity, a 3500 KCMIL Cable was chosen for the conductor. The ducts will incorporate a fiberglass conduit in order to prevent degradation from the salt spray and other environmental conditions in the area.
For the North Pier, the routing of the underground cable will maintain the termination structures on the pier and proceed underneath onto a hanger system (see Detail A on CSK-GO-001) that will be underhung from the pier until reaching the existing cable tray. The conduit system will then proceed down the cable tray as depicted on Detail C of CSK-GO-001 (Appendix A) until reaching the end of the pier. The line will then go underground into a duct bank (see Detail B on CSK-GO-001 for duct bank configuration). The line will proceed up and around the northern edge of the substation until entering the station to a new termination structure on the northeast side of the yard.
For the South Pier, the routing of the underground cable will have it leave the termination structures and go directly into a duct bank per Detail B on CSK-GO-001. The duct bank will proceed east along the northern side of the South Pier until reaching 2nd Avenue where it will turn north and run along the roadway for approximately 100 ft. The line will then turn east again and enter the substation to a new termination structure.
2. The Application also should include a detail drawing to scale or exaggerated scale showing the route of the south pier feeder as described in PSS.
Response:
Comment noted. A separate general arrangement showing the route of the South Pier feeder from the take-off tower to the Gowanus substation is being developed and will be issued in the near future. See response to Comment 4.34.2.1 for additional details.
Exhibit 40 – Telecommunications Interconnection
27
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
Section 4.40.2 – Content of the Application
1. The Applicant should include a detailed description of the telecommunication line route between the interconnection points in the Application.
Response:
Comment noted. The telecommunication line to the existing plant will not be disturbed or altered as part of this project.
Comments of Sierra Club (June 26, 2019)
1. AGC’s project description inappropriately disguises environmental harms by linking the proposed project to unit retirements and implying a net decrease in emissions. However, neither the existing Narrows Plant nor the Gowanus Plant may continue to operate beyond 2023-2025, absent new pollution controls following new regulations mandating emissions reductions at peaking power plants. Therefore, future emissions reductions at the existing facilities bear no relation to AGC’s proposed project. In addition, describing the proposed facility as cleaner on a pound-per-megawatt-hour (“MWh”) basis obscures the likelihood that the new facility may operate far more frequently than the existing facility resulting in an overall increase in Gowanus site emissions. AGC provides no assurances that, even if the proposed facility is operated at a higher capacity than the current units, there will be significant emissions reductions if the retirement of the Narrows facility is not considered. AGC does not acknowledge the project’s likely displacement of renewable generation or energy storage that would be installed but for the construction of a large new fossil gas peaking plant. The proposed facility must be evaluated for what it is: a large new fossil gas plant that would displace renewables and storage and generate harmful emissions for decades to come. The proposed plant must be assessed on its own merits and not in conjunction with the retirement of two existing plants that must control emissions by 2023-2025 in any event.
Response:
Multiple comments noted. It is important to note that, as stated in the PSS, the Gowanus Repowering Project entails the repowering of an existing facility and will be fully evaluated as such under Article 10. The repowered facility will generate electricity much more efficiently than the existing facility and several other older facilities currently providing electricity to the New York City grid. The repowered facility, with substantially cleaner pound-per-megawatt-hour emissions, would displace other higher emitting, less efficient
28
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 fossil fuel units within the City, and will meet reliability and resiliency needs of the community. The Application will provide a detailed analysis of air pollution impacts as part of the requirements for Exhibit 17 and a complete environmental justice analysis as required by 6 NYCRR Part 487 and the requirements for Exhibit 28. The Applicant met with the DPS, the DEC and the DOH on June 25, 2019 to discuss the protocols for air modeling, the cumulative impact analysis and the environmental justice analysis. There were follow-up discussions with the DEC regarding the air modeling and cumulative impacts analysis protocols. Draft protocols have been or will be submitted shortly to the DEC for further review and will be finalized through the Article 10 Stipulation process with the agencies and interested parties. In particular, the Applicant will meet with UPROSE to discuss the elements of the environmental justice analysis and to seek input.
2. AGC’s proposed facility is incompatible with State energy policies. AGC has the burden of proof to demonstrate that all findings and determinations required by PSL Section 168 can be made by the Board, and subsequently the Commission. The Board may only grant a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need (“Certificate”) authorizing the construction of the proposed plant if it determines that the facility serves the public interest, constitutes a beneficial addition to or substitution for the electric generation capacity of the state and is designed to operate in compliance with state law. AGC does not—and cannot—support such findings because the proposed plant stands fundamentally at odds with state objectives and new legislation. In addition, the New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (“the CLCPA”) added two requirements pertinent to the Boards review of its issuance of a Certificate for the Gowanus Facility. First, CLCPA Section 7(2) requires the Board to consider whether such decisions are inconsistent with or will interfere with the attainment of the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits. Section 7(2) also provides that to the extent decisions are deemed inconsistent or interfere with the attainment of the statewide greenhouse gas limits, each agency, office, authority, or division shall provide a detailed statement of justification as to why such limits/criteria may not be met, and identify alternatives or greenhouse gas mitigation measures to be required where such project is located. Second, CLCPA Section 7(3) requires that all state agencies shall not disproportionately burden disadvantaged communities and shall prioritize reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and co-pollutants in disadvantaged communities. These new requirements bear on the Board’s consideration and administrative decision on the Gowanus Certificate.
a. State law mandates a shift to clean energy and the elimination of electric sector emissions. CLCPA Section 4 mandates reductions to greenhouse gas emissions by the electric sector with the goal of having 70% of statewide electricity needs being met by renewable energy sources by 2030, and carbon free by 2040. The Public Service Commission’s (“PSC’s”) ability to deviate from these mandates is strictly limited under CLCPA Section 4, and furthermore, State compliance with the CLCPA is subject to judicial review under CLCPA Section 12. The CLCPA builds on the 2009 goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80%, state legislations requiring a decrease in carbon dioxide emissions from major generation facilities, and adoption of a state energy plan aimed at reducing emissions and increasing
29
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 renewable generation. The CLCPA also mandates the procurement of 9 gigawatts (“GWs”) of offshore wind by 2035; 6 GWs of photovoltaic solar by 2025; and 3 GWs of energy storage capacity by 2030. The state has long promoted a shift to clean energy. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (“NYSERDA”) has issued annual solicitations resulting in 26 agreements, in 2017, to develop 1,383 MW of clean energy capacity, operational by 2022, and 19 agreements in 2018, to develop 1,364 MW of clean energy and 25 MW of storage, operational by 2023. These efforts as well as the PSC’s previously adopted goal to install 2.4 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030 will likewise accelerate efforts to comply with the CLCPA.
b. AGC’s fossil gas plan proposal is incompatible with New York’s clean energy future. To reach 70% renewable generation by 2030, the State requires less fossil-fuel fired plants resulting in less fossil generation. To reach zero electric sector emissions by 2040, the State must completely eliminate fossil generation within 20 years. AGC’s proposal appears to increase, not decrease, emissions and total generation at the Gowanus site. If AGC claims otherwise it must substantiate those claims with detailed modeling of onsite emissions and generation, as well as the purported displacement of high-emitting sources overall. AGC’s proposal does not qualify for expedited treatment under N.Y. P.S.L. section 165(4)(b), pertaining to modifications and unit replacements that would decrease the rate of emissions and total annual emissions. AGC’s PSS states that Exhibit 41 is not applicable to the project. Per 16 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 1001.41, Exhibit 41 is necessary when an applicant claims that its application qualifies for treatment pursuant to N.Y. P.S.L. Section 165(4)(b). AGC is unable to explain how a new fossil gas plant will promote a shift to clean energy and instead attempts to justify its new plant as necessary for system reliability. AGC argues that renewables are intermittent in nature and require fossil gas plants for system reliability. AGC’s claims are unsubstantiated, and nowhere does the PSS explain why new generation is presently necessary for system reliability. AGC relies on a hypothetical scenario from a Draft NYISO Report that describes the potential effect of the Peaker Rule, and identifies a deficiency of 160 MW under normal conditions and a total deficiency of 420 MW in the area surrounding the Gowanus Plant. AGC makes no claim that such a scenario is likely, and further fails to demonstrate why renewables—either alone or paired with storage—will not suffice to meet this hypothetical reliability need following implementation of the Peaker Rule. Moreover, the New York City Climate Mobilization Act requires a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from covered buildings by 2030. The resulting reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and peak energy demand will decrease the need for peaking units and mitigate the capacity concerns identified in the Draft NYISO Report. AGC’s proposed project stands at odds with state energy policies and the CLPCA. If AGC is to claim otherwise, the Company must submit with its Article 10 Application significant additional justification and modeling addressing each of the above points.
Response:
30
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
Multiple comments noted. The Application will discuss the energy reliability and resiliency needs for the local community and demonstrate the compatibility of the proposed Gowanus Repowering Project with State Energy Planning objectives as required in Exhibit 10. The analysis will address reliability deficiencies determined by Con Ed and the NYISO, as well as the results of the recent study prepared by NYSERDA and released by the Public Service Commission on July 1, 2019 (“The Potential for Energy Storage to Repower or Replace Peaking Units in New York State”). See the above response to Comment 1 under Exhibit 9 of the DPS comments. The Applicant is fully aware of the newly enacted Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act which codifies many of the existing energy policy goals previously announced by the State Administration and will demonstrate the project’s compliance with any potentially applicable provisions of the law. The Applicant is also cognizant and understands the City’s new Climate Mobilization Act which will also be discussed in the Application with regard to the requirement to comply with applicable City laws and regulations. Although Article 10 allows for waiver of City laws and rules generally, the Applicant has assured the City Administration that it has no intention to seek such a waiver. See also the response to Comment 1 above.
3. AGC must demonstrate a public need for the proposed plant in the context of a robust alternatives analysis. AGC cannot show that its proposal is in the public interest if it cannot demonstrate a need for the new gas plant. AGC must determine whether increased generation capacity is needed and if so, how much. It must also determine whether any such need is best met with new fossil fuel generation—as AGC proposes—or whether non-combustion alternatives (i.e., wind, solar, storage, efficiency, and demand response) would most suitably meet that need in line with the state’s energy policies and the CLCPA. AGC must conduct a vigorous alternatives analysis aimed at making these determinations and evaluating which option is best suited to promote the public health and welfare. See 16 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1000.5(l)(2)(x); id. § 1001.9(d)-(i). AGC’s statement that it will consider just two alternatives—the proposed project and an alternative in which the existing Gowanus and Narrows Plants are retrofitted in compliance with the Peaker Rule—falls far short of Article 10’s requirements. PSS at 4-20; N.Y. P.S.L. §§ 163(f), 164(i); 16 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1001.9. First AGC must conduct a robust “no action” analysis.
a. First, AGC must conduct a robust “no action” analysis. 16 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1001.9(f). AGC’s claim that the Peaker Rule renders the no action alternative inapplicable cannot be reconciled with Article 10 requirements. In line with the requirement to demonstrate consistency with state law, state energy policies, and the public interest, the no action analysis should analyze statewide emissions and model renewable generation uptake both with and without the proposed plant. To the extent AGC demonstrates a need for increased generation capacity, the no action analysis should assess whether that need would otherwise be met by either renewable generation, demand side resources, or storage anticipated in the absence of the proposed plant. Notably, AGC’s second alternative (in which the existing plants are retrofitted in accordance with the Rule) cannot displace the no action analysis because it presupposes the
31
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 continued operation of the existing Gowanus and Narrows plants and would therefore distort no action modeling of emissions and renewables uptake in the absence of the proposed plant.
b. Second, AGC’s claim that “[b]ecause the Project is an existing facility, the requirement for the identification and evaluations of reasonable and available alternate location sites is not applicable” has no basis in law. PSS at 4-21; see id. at 4-22. The Article 10 regulations provide only one exception to the requirement to identify alternative locations: “a private facility applicant may limit its identification and description to sites owned by, or under option to, such private facility applicant or its affiliates.” 16 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1001.9(a); see id. § 1005.(l)(2)(x). AGC must therefore identify all sites owned by or under option to AGC or its affiliates and explain why they do not present a better option for the development of alternatives to the proposed gas plant.
c. Third, the alternatives analysis must also consider a range of technology alternatives. The PSS includes regulatory boilerplate indicating the Application will include “[a]n identification and description of reasonable energy supply source alternatives.” PSS at 4-22. However, the PSS’s identification of just two alternatives—and subsequent reference to what AGC calls “the two reasonable alternatives”—suggests that AGC may consider “reasonable energy supply source alternatives” to constitute a null set. PSS at 4-21 – 4-22. To the contrary, AGC must assess the use of varying gas plant sizes and configurations. AGC’s proposed 590 MW plant is a large facility. The Company must assess the smallest facility sufficient to meet any demonstrated need for additional generation and, if opting to move forward with the large plant proposal, explain why the smaller facility does not better comport with state law, state energy policies, and the public interest. 16 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1001.9(c)(3). AGC must also assess whether to install renewables or storage in place of the proposed fossil gas plant. See id. § 1001.9(c)(2). As noted above, AGC attempts to justify its proposed plant as necessary for system reliability. See Section II. However, New York has recognized that energy storage is uniquely suited to address the needs of an energy system with high levels of renewable generation: “Energy storage technology will play a critical role in the REV energy future by helping to improve reliability, reducing peak load, and enabling greater integration of intermittent renewable resources such as solar and wind.” The PSS’s alternatives discussion is rife with deficiencies. The Company’s Article 10 Application must remedy these deficiencies and set forth a robust alternatives analysis addressing each of the points set forth above.
Response:
Multiple comments noted. First, there is no reasonable “no action” alternative. The units at Gowanus and Narrows can comply with the newly promulgated DEC regulations with respect to controlling NOx emissions from the units and, absent approval of the project under Article 10, the Applicant intends to pursue such compliance, though the Applicant believes the proposed Article 10 project is
32
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 the better alternative. As discussed above, consistent with the Siting Board regulations at 16 NYCRR § 1001.9, the alternatives analysis outlined in the PSS identified and described the two alternative that are reasonable, available and feasible considering the objectives and capabilities of the Applicant. While neither DPS nor DEC has asked the Applicant to evaluate the availability of renewable energy or energy storage as an alternative to the preferred alternative, the Applicant will consider the reasonable availability, feasibility and capability of renewable energy or energy storage, to be located solely on the Gowanus and Narrows properties in Sunset Park, as an alternative to the preferred project, in view of the reliability and resiliency requirements of the area. The Applicant already noted in the PSS that it was exploring an energy storage project at the Narrows facility outside the Article 10 process in conjunction with the Con Ed Request for Proposal for Battery Storage. The Application has also reviewed the results of the recent study prepared by NYSERDA and released by the Public Service Commission on July 1, 2019 (“The Potential for Energy Storage to Repower or Replace Peaking Units in New York State”). See the above response to Comment 1 under Exhibit 9 of the DPS comments.
4. The PSS section on Air Emissions—among several others—lacks sufficient detail to allow for useful comment. See PSS at 4-34 – 4-39. For example, while the PSS provides a table identifying applicable regulations by part and subpart, the PSS provides no indication of how AGC will assess compliance. Id. at 4-34 – 4-36. The PSS likewise sets forth an outline of air modeling protocol with topical headings but scarcely any detail on AGC’s proposed methodology or modeling inputs. PSS at 4-35 – 4- 39. The PSS’s lack of detail severely constrains the public’s ability to comment meaningfully on AGC’s planned approach.
a. First, the PSS does not indicate how AGC will treat emissions from the existing Gowanus and Narrows facility when assessing project emissions. As stated in Section I, the proposed plant must be evaluated as a standalone project and not in conjunction with the retirement of two existing plants that must control emissions by 2023-2025 in any event.
b. Second, with regard to greenhouse gas emissions, AGC merely indicates that it will provide the rate and amount of carbon dioxide emissions. PSS at 4-37. The Company must also quantify the emissions of other greenhouse gases, including but not limited to methane emissions. Specifically, the Company’s analysis should address the full life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions inherent to operation of a large gas plant, from fossil gas extraction through to electric generation itself. The Company must further compare the annual and total emissions of the proposed plant to those of identified project alternatives. AGC’s proposed air emissions analysis, as described in the PSS, does not meet Article 10 requirements. AGC must develop and undertake a comprehensive air emissions analysis meeting at minimum the requirements of 16 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1001.17 if the Company is to provide a complete Article 10 Application. 16 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1001.17. The PSS reveals significant deficiencies in both AGC’s assessment of its proposed fossil gas plant and its demonstration of compliance with Article 10 requirements. AGC must correct and address these deficiencies before filing its Article 10 Application.
33
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
Response:
Multiple comments noted. As discussed above, the Application will provide a detailed analysis of air pollution impacts as part of the requirements for Exhibit 17 and a complete environmental justice analysis as required by 6 NYCRR Part 487 and the requirements for Exhibit 28. The Applicant met with the DPS, the DEC and the DOH on June 25, 2019 to discuss the protocols for air modeling, the cumulative impact analysis, and the environmental justice analysis. There were follow-up discussions with the DEC regarding the air modeling and cumulative impacts analysis protocols. Draft protocols have been or will be submitted shortly to the DEC for further review and will be finalized through the Article 10 Stipulation process with the agencies and interested parties. In particular, the Applicant will meet with UPROSE to discuss the elements of the environmental justice analysis and to seek input. See also above response to Comment 1.
Comments of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (June 26, 2019)
General Comments
1. Shapefiles containing Project components and suitable for use in ESRI’s ArcMap GIS software should be submitted to NYSDEC as soon as possible. The Applicant should update shapefiles depicting preliminary Project component/layout and resubmit to NYSDEC as needed and in a timely manner during Project development and review.
Response:
Comment noted. A conceptual site plan has been provided in Appendix A hereto and will be updated as part of the Article 10 Application and periodically, as necessary and as project design progresses. This updated plan will be provided to the agencies in the required electronic format throughout the Article 10 Application review process; however, the Applicant may request these files be considered confidential (for both security and proprietary reasons) as more design details are provided.
2. Appendix D of the PSS contains a list of current permits, including those issued by NYSDEC. The current permits for the Narrows facility should also be listed in this table. These include: an Air Title V permit which is currently undergoing the renewal process (NYSDEC ID#2-6102-00086/00011), and a SPDES permit (NY0200808, NYS DEC ID #2-6102- 00086/00009). In addition, please remove the expired Air Title IV permit (NYSDEC ID#2-6102-00116/00023) from the table.
34
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 Response:
Comment noted. A complete list of the current permits for the Narrows facility will be provided as part of the Article 10 Application, though the Narrows facility is expected to be shut down as part of the Article 10 approval. The expired Air Title V permit (NYSDEC ID#2-6102-00116/00023) will be removed from the list.
PSS Appendix A – Exhibit-Specific Comments
Exhibit 10
1. This section of the PSS presents information relating to the New York State Energy Plan and the State’s objectives to increase renewable energy sources and significantly reduce GHG emissions. The recent 2015 New York State Energy Plan, in coordination with Governor Cuomo’s Reforming the Energy Vision, established the 2030 clean energy goals of: (i) a 40% reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels, and (ii) 50% generation of electricity from renewable energy sources. It also established the goal of an 80% reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2050. In 2019, Governor Cuomo announced the Green New Deal for New York that would mandate 100% zero carbon power by 2040 and increase New York’s Clean Energy Standard mandate from 50% to 70% renewable electricity by 2030. These objectives are codified in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), which passed the Legislature just last week. S. 6599, A. 8429 (N.Y. 2019). The CLCPA also includes a Statewide GHG emission limit that would require an 85% reduction in Statewide GHG emissions by 2050. The applicant should evaluate whether the repowered facility conflicts with New York’s short and long term GHG reduction and clean energy goals, including those set forth in the CLCPA.
2. As proposed, this Project intends to rely on using natural gas for the generation of electricity Instead of supporting clean energy development as necessary to meet the goals of 50-70% renewable energy by 2030 and 100% zero carbon electricity by 2040. If the project follows the proposed timeline of being operational in or before 2023, it would have approximately 17-20 years of operation until it would have to comply with the 100% clean power by 2040 requirement, which would require a plan to sequester its carbon dioxide emissions. The applicant should evaluate how its proposal to use natural gas for the repowered facility is consistent with clean energy development and State goals, as well as discuss its plan for carbon dioxide sequestration in the future, or provide a plan for the decommissioning and removal of the barges as discussed on page 4-25 of the PSS.
Response:
35
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 Multiple comments noted. See responses to Comments 2 and 3 of Sierra Club. In addition, as renewable energy and storage develops sufficiently to meet reliability needs, as described in the project description, when the Gowanus power barges are no longer needed, they can be easily disconnected and removed.
Exhibit 16
1. This section of the PSS discusses Federally delegated permit applications to be submitted to NYSDEC. As noted in the PSS, this project will require a modification to the existing Air Title V permit for the Gowanus facility (NYSDEC ID #2-6102- 00116/00021) pursuant to Article 19 of the ECL and a full renewal of the Gowanus facility’s existing SPDES permit (NY0201006, NYS DEC ID #2-6102-00116/00019) pursuant to Article 17 of the ECL. In addition, The Air Title V permit for the Narrows facility (NYSDEC #2-6102-00086/00011) is currently undergoing the renewal process and is required to complete air quality modeling to demonstrate compliance with the 1-hour NO2 standard. The renewal process for the permit should be completed as soon as possible for the existing/operating Narrows facility, regardless of future goals of decommissioning.
Response:
Comment noted. The final modeling study for the permit renewal for Narrows has been submitted to DEC and the permit is expected to be renewed prior to the filing of the Application. The Narrows permit renewal is not a subject of this Article 10 proceeding. The Narrows facility is expected to be retired as part of the Article 10 approval.
Exhibit 17
1. This section of the PSS presents information pertaining to the analyses to be performed by the applicant and contained in the Article 10 application, for identification of any potentially significant adverse impacts to air quality. While the PSS describes information that is typically provided at the modeling protocol stage, the applicant will still be required to submit a detailed modeling protocol, as noted in section 4.17.2(d), for review and approval by DEC staff prior to actually performing the modeling.
Response:
Comment noted. As discussed above, a detailed air quality modeling protocol has been or will be submitted shortly to DEC for review and approval, which protocol will be incorporated into the Stipulations under Article 10.
36
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
Exhibit 20
1. Exhibit 20 should include Tribal consultation procedures, which should be implemented at the start of cultural resource investigations, at or before the time that NYS OPRHP is consulted.
Response:
Comment noted. It should be noted that the previous Phase 1A study did not identify any Native American sites at the project site. However, Tribal consultation will be conducted as part of the Supplemental Phase 1A study and the procedures and results will be included in the report and Article 10 Application, as applicable.
Exhibit 23
1. Every attempt should be made to avoid all impacts to surface waters, followed by a minimization of unavoidable impacts. This section of the PSS should describe changes to the over-water facility footprint caused by the removal of the existing barges at the Gowanus and Narrows facilities, the installation of the new barges at Gowanus, pier work, or other activities. Proposed over-water coverage should be reduced or kept to a minimum. If the over-water coverage area is proposed to increase due to barge or pier size changes, a description of the mitigation proposed should be included in the application.
Response:
Comment noted. Over-water coverage will be a net reduction by going from four (4) barges to two (2) barges. Even if additional piles for the mooring system will be required, there will still be a large reduction in over-water coverage area. Four barges cover 67,940 square feet; preliminary new barge design indicates coverage of 43,610 square feet, which equates to a reduction of 24,330 square feet. Note that the Narrows barges if removed provides additional over-water coverage reduction.
2. The application should include a plan for the decommissioning and removal of the barges and Narrows and Gowanus as discussed on page 4-25 of the PSS. If the Narrows Generating Station barges are not removed when the facility is decommissioned, and/or if the barges are proposed to be kept in the water and their use is proposed to change, a description of the mitigation proposed should be included in the application. If decommissioning and moving the barges would require that the pilings be vibrated out a December 1st to March 31st work prohibition window protective of overwintering striped bass should be adhered to.
37
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
Response:
Comment noted. See responses above regarding decommissioning. No piles have to be vibrated out to remove the existing barges.
3. Page 2-5 of the PSS states that “If an evaluation of the existing spud beams finds the beams are to be replaced, upon a geotechnical investigation, a detailed design for new spud beams and a plan for their installation will be prepared.” Note that if the spuds must be changed out all the way down into the sediment, a December 1st to March 31st work prohibition window protective of overwintering striped bass should be adhered to.
Response:
Comment noted. If the design and engineering of the spud beams determine that disturbance of the bottom sediments at the pier will required, the Applicant will meet with DEC and develop an installation plan to address any applicable time of year restrictions.
Exhibit 28
1. Exhibit 28 acknowledges NYSDEC’s regulation setting forth the requirements for analyzing EJ issues in conjunction with the proposed Project, namely, 6 NYCRR Part 487 – Analyzing Environmental Justice Issues in Siting of Major Electric Generating Facilities Pursuant to Public Service Law Article 10 (Part 487). Pursuant to Part 487, a one-half mile radius around the proposed location of the Project is the minimum impact study area required, but shall be increased based on site-specific factors including, among others, the scope and magnitude of environmental impacts (See 6 NYCRR §487.4(b)). Moreover, for proposed facilities that are also air emission sources, such as this Project, Part 487 requires a cumulative impact analysis (See 6 NYCRR §487.7(a)). The cumulative impact analysis must consider the largest of several distances, including the distance to the furthest receptor location of maximum impact for any relevant air pollutants (Id. at §487.7(b)). Accordingly, the Applicant may be required to consider an impact study area larger than a one-half mile radius around the facility, particularly due to the fact that the Project would be an air emission source, and considering the results of any modeling. Finally, the applicant should utilize 2000 Census Bureau and 2011-2016 American Community Survey data for the EJ evaluation in its application (both are available from the Census Bureau’s website). Enclosed is a map of PEJAs located within 5 miles of the Project. This map includes NYSDEC PEJAs, US census American Community Survey income data from 2011-2016, and the locations of Indian Nation Reservations.
Response:
38
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
Multiple comments noted. On June 25, 2019, the Applicant met with the DEC, the DPS and the DOH to discuss among other things, how the cumulative impact analysis for the environmental justice analysis should be performed. A follow-up conference call with DEC occurred thereafter. As discussed above, an air modeling and cumulative analysis protocol has been or will shortly be submitted to the DEC for further review and will be incorporated into the Stipulations under Article 10.
With regard to the identification of the potential environmental justice areas, the regulation at 6 NYCRR 487.5 requires the Applicant in an Article 10 proceeding to use “reliable U.S. Census data or other generally accepted and reasonably available demographic data.” The most reliable and most recently available census data are provided by the 2010 Census with the 2015 update. It is not required nor is it appropriate to use an old PDF map on the DEC website which relies solely on outdated 2000 census data. A review of the 2011-2016 American Community Survey shows that it is this data that was incorporated into the 2015 update. The Applicant has checked and double checked the existing census tracts that are appropriately considered environmental justice areas based on minority population, poverty statistics, or both. The map as presented in the PSS will remain the same with one significant change. The census tract along the industrial waterfront is long and narrow and runs from Prospect Avenue to the north to Shore Road to the south. The Applicant did not originally designate the tract as a environmental justice area because of “ground-truthing” which is suggested by the DEC on its website. The area within the Gowanus study area is heavily industrialized and a significant investigation did not show any residences (incompatible with zoning or otherwise) within that tract within the study area. It is believed that some residences, despite the M3 zoning, may exist south of the Narrows facility but still within the census tract. This further demonstrates the benefit of the shut down of Narrows which is proximate to more residences than the Gowanus facility. Regardless, the Applicant has decided that it is correct to show the entire waterfront census tract as an environmental justice area and has made that change in the attached revised map, attached hereto as Appendix C (revised Figure 5 from PSS). Even without the addition of the waterfront tract or reliance on outdated information, the Applicant has straightforwardly recognized and acknowledged the existence of a significant environmental justice community which may be impacted by the Gowanus Repowering Project. As discussed above, the Applicant has committed to conducting a full and complete environmental justice analysis required by 6 NYCRR Part 487 and the requirement of Exhibit 28.
Comments of UPROSE (June 26, 2019)
1. AGC understates the potential for higher emissions from Gowanus. In its Project Description, AGC seeks to portray its proposed new gas plant as a net benefit for the environment and public health by tying it to the retirement of both the existing units at the Gowanus plant and another plant owned by the company, known as Narrows, also located on the Sunset Park waterfront about 30 blocks south. PSS at 2-2 – 2-4. By linking the proposed project to these unit retirements, AGC implies that its project will result in a net decrease in emissions. This implication is dangerously misleading. First, as AGC concedes, new
39
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 regulations expected from the Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) will require significant reductions in NOx emissions from aging, inefficient single-cycle combustion turbines across the state, including the existing Gowanus and Narrows units, regardless of whether AGC’s Application is granted. Under the proposed regulations, both the Narrows Plant and the existing Gowanus Plant must either retrofit or retire by 2023-2025. Id.; PSS at 2-7, 4-21. Emissions reductions from these two facilities are not, therefore, contingent on the approval of AGC’s Application as the Project Description implies, and the company should not receive “credits” against emissions from the new facility based on retirement of the old units at Gowanus or the retirement of the totally separate Narrows plant. AGC further claims that the Project “will displace substantial pollution from older, higher emitting, in-City generating facilities . . . .” PSS at 2-6. AGC appears to refer to other city peaker plants, also subject to the Peaker Rule, and therefore also required to either retrofit or shut down by 2023–2025. Second, because these facilities are all peaking units that operate intermittently, the measure of actual emissions is not the stated MW capacity but rather the operating time of the plant. AGC promises that its proposal would yield a decrease in emission rates on a pounds per megawatt-hour produced (“MWh”) basis. PSS at 2-6, 5-1. However, the new facility may operate far more frequently than the existing facility and therefore result in an overall increase in Gowanus site emissions. And while AGC claims to anticipate an overall decrease in actual emissions if a Narrows retirement is taken into account, that claim is neither substantiated nor sufficient to address the likelihood of increased impacts at the Gowanus site. PSS at 4-34. The need to comply with forthcoming DEC regulations limiting NOx emissions could be an opportunity to develop innovative, clean solutions to meeting peak energy needs. The regulations themselves provide multiple compliance pathways, including the option to use battery storage and/or renewable energy for a portion of a plant’s generation in order to achieve a lower effective emissions rate. See Peaker Rule at § 227-3.5(b). Instead, AGC is simply proposing more of the same: a large new fossil-fuel gas plant that would operate—and pollute—for many years.
Response:
Multiple comments noted. The Applicant acknowledges the seriousness of the concerns expressed on behalf of UPROSE, however, it is difficult to respond in detail to many of the comments expressed above in this setting and many issues will be addressed throughout the Article 10 process. Briefly, the Gowanus Repowering Project is just that, a repowering project that entails the repowering of an existing facility, which will be fully evaluated as such under Article 10. The Applicant has acknowledged that the repowered Gowanus facility may operate more than the existing facility but it will generate electricity much more efficiently than the existing facility and several other older facilities currently providing electricity to the New York City grid. The repowered facility, with substantially cleaner pound-per-megawatt-hour emissions, and utilizing less fuel, would displace other higher emitting, less efficient fossil fuel units within the City, and will meet reliability and resiliency needs of the community. There is and will continue to be a reliability issue within the area’s constrained load pocket.
40
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 If the Project is approved, the DEC will permit the repowered Gowanus facility independently of the Narrows facility as has been the case for the existing facilities. The retirement of Narrows, deeper within the residential community, is a benefit of the repowering as the Applicant believes that the repowered Gowanus facility will provide the electrical reliability the community needs and will better facilitate the transition to renewable energy sources. Keeping both the existing Gowanus and Narrows facility operating (potentially at greater capacity level given the retirement of Indian Point and as electrical needs increase) with back end controls for limited NOx reduction is the alternative. UPROSE notes that old peakers may comply with the new DEC regulations with some level of backup storage installed. Again, from an environmental perspective, such an alternative may not produce the benefits desired. The Applicant has reviewed the results of the recent study prepared by NYSERDA and released by the Public Service Commission on July 1, 2019 (“The Potential for Energy Storage to Repower or Replace Peaking Units in New York State”) and will consider the report’s analysis and conclusions in our evaluation. The NYSERDA report is encouraging with respect to its findings regarding the future use of energy storage in the mix of energy resources within the City but is also supportive of a project like the Gowanus Repowering Project. Regardless, while neither DPS nor DEC has asked the Applicant to evaluate the availability of renewable energy or energy storage as an alternative to the preferred alternative, in response to comments from UPROSE, the Applicant will evaluate the reasonable availability, feasibility and capability of renewable energy or energy storage, to be located solely on the Gowanus and Narrows properties in Sunset Park, as an alternative to the preferred project, in view of the reliability and resiliency requirements of the area. The details of this evaluation process will be developed and finalized during the Article 10 Stipulation process, with the assistance of the agencies and UPROSE. The Applicant already noted in the PSS that it was exploring an energy storage project at the Narrows facility outside the Article 10 process in conjunction with the Con Ed Request for Proposal for Battery Storage, released on July 15, 2019, which solicits up to 300 MW of storage projects. The Applicant is also considering 3 MW of storage to provide black start capability instead on using traditional diesel units, and will explore the potential for photovoltaics to support the charging of the batteries.
As stated in the PSS, the Applicant believes that a more efficient, more responsive, quick starting facility is what is needed to facilitate the transition to renewable energy and storage as it becomes more technologically available and economical. As the Applicant has stated repeatedly, when the Gowanus units are no longer needed, the barges can be disconnected and removed, without leaving substantial abandoned infrastructure in the community.
With regard to environmental impacts from the Gowanus Repowering Project, as stated multiple times above, the Applicant will conduct a detailed analysis of air pollution impacts as part of the requirements for Exhibit 17 and a complete environmental justice analysis as required by 6 NYCRR Part 487 and the requirements for Exhibit 28. The Applicant met with the DPS, the DEC and the DOH on June 25, 2019 to discuss the protocols for air modeling, the cumulative impact analysis and the environmental justice analysis. There were follow-up discussions with the DEC regarding the air modeling and cumulative impacts analysis protocols. Draft protocols have been or will be submitted shortly to the DEC for further review and will be finalized through the Article 10
41
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 Stipulation process with the agencies and interested parties. In addition, the Applicant hopes to meet with UPROSE, with or without the agencies, to discuss both the air and environmental justice analyses to be performed. The actual and projected impacts will be evaluated, as well as mitigation measures for substantial adverse impacts identified (including any disproportionate impacts), if any.
In general, the Applicant agrees that the PSS does not contain a great deal of detail with regard to the evaluations to be performed for the Application. Discussions with the DPS and DEC indicated that the PSS is not the place for too much detail in order to provide the agencies and public with the opportunity to provide comments that will inform the remainder of the process. The applicant must make its best case for the project in the Article 10 Application after conducting studies developed through the Article 10 Stipulation process. The Applicant looks forward to interactions with and more detailed comments from UPROSE, Sierra Club, the agencies and any other interested parties.
See also responses to comments from DPS, Sierra Club and DEC.
2. The proposed repowering project is inconsistent with state energy policy. In order to grant a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need (“Certificate”) authorizing the construction of the proposed plant, the Board must determine that the proposed facility would (1) be “a beneficial addition to or substitution for the electric generation capacity of the state,” (2) “serve the public interest,” (3) minimize or avoid adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, (4) avoid, offset or minimize disproportionate impacts to the local community, and (5) be “designed to operate in compliance with [state law].” N.Y. P.S.L. § 168(3)(a)–(e). To make these determinations, the Board must among other things consider: the state of available technology, the nature and economics of reasonable alternatives, community and environmental impacts, and the consistency of the facility with state energy policies. Id. § 168(4). The PSS acknowledges the renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals set in the 2015 Energy Plan and the more ambitious mandates in the then-pending Climate and Community Protection Act (now CLCPA), but nevertheless claims that for an undefined period of time there will continue to be “an important role for cleaner and efficient natural gas fired facilities.” PSS at 4-23 – 4-25. This claim has no basis and is flatly contradicted by Governor Cuomo’s January 2019 commitment—now mandated by the CLCPA—to shift to a 100% carbon-neutral electricity sector by 2040. Even at the time the PSS was filed, the state had set a time limit on the role of gas-fired generating facilities. The proposal to invest substantial capital in a new gas-fired facility at Gowanus without any end date for its operations or any plan for a shift to battery storage and renewable energy is inconsistent with New York’s energy policy.
a. The proposed gas plant is inconsistent with New York’s shift to renewable and clean energy. The Siting Board can only grant a Certificate authorizing the repowering of the Gowanus plant if it determines that the facility is “reasonably consistent with the most recent state energy plan.” N.Y. P.S.L. § 164(1)(l). Even prior to passage of the CLCPA, the
42
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 2015 State Energy Plan made a formal commitment to increasing the State’s reliance on renewable energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve this, the 2015 Plan called for a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels and for 50% of all electricity needs to come from renewable energy sources by 2030, and for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Pursuant to the 2015 Plan, New York adopted numerous policies and initiatives to move these goals forward, including the 2016 Clean Energy Standard and the New York State Energy Storage Roadmap, which sets forth state goals of 1,500 MW of energy storage by 2025 and 3,600 MW of energy storage by 2030. Since 2017, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (“NYSERDA”) has issued annual requests for clean energy project proposals—thus far leading to agreements for 2,747 MW of clean energy capacity and 25 MW of storage, all of which would be operational by 2022-2023.5 In 2018, the Public Service Commission (“PSC”) formally adopted a goal to install 2.4 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030, which is in process. A new gas-fired facility flies in the face of the Energy Plan and implementing policies and initiatives. In 2018, just 26% of generation came from renewables, while more than 40% came from fossil plants. To reach the Energy Plan’s goals for renewable generation, the State must decrease reliance on fossil generation. Investing substantial capital into the continued use of natural gas does not help move the state toward its renewable energy and greenhouse gas emission goals, since natural gas infrastructure becomes more entrenched through projects like this one. As discussed above, AGC’s proposal is likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions and total generation at the Gowanus site. To justify its claim that this investment in continued use of natural gas is necessary and consistent with the Energy Plan, AGC must demonstrate why it cannot meet existing needs with renewable energy and storage technology.
b. The project is inconsistent with the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The greenhouse gas emissions reduction and renewable energy mandates in the CLCPA, which passed the legislature subsequent to the filing of the PSS, now supersede those in the 2015 Energy Plan. The CLCPA mandates greenhouse gas emissions cuts across all sectors of the economy, with the intent of reducing actual emissions by 85% of 1990 levels and eliminating net emissions by 2050. CLCPA § 1(4).9 The CLCPA requires fast action in the electric sector, mandating that by 2030 a minimum of 70% of statewide electric generations needs must be met with renewable energy. CLCPA § 4 (to be codified at N.Y. Pub. Serv. Law § 66-P(2)). The statewide electrical demand system must be zero emissions by 2040. Id. The CLCPA also mandates the procurement of significant additional clean energy and storage capacity, including: six gigawatts (“GWs”) of photovoltaic solar by 2025, three GWs of energy storage by 2030, and nine GWs of offshore wind by 2035. CLCPA § 4 (to be codified at N.Y. Pub. Serv. Law § 66-P(5)). In addition, the CLCPA specifically directs the PSC to ensure, to the extent practicable, that energy storage projects under this mandate be deployed to reduce the usage of combustion powered peaking facilities located in or near “disadvantaged communities.” Id. § 4 (to be codified at N.Y. Pub. Serv. Law § 66-p(7)(a)). A new gas-fired peaker in Sunset Park is in direct conflict with this
43
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 goal. Under the CLCPA, any state agency issuing a permit, license or approval must consider whether the project is consistent with the state’s greenhouse gas emission reduction mandates, and whether the project prioritizes the reduction of greenhouse gases and co-pollutants in disadvantaged communities or instead disproportionately burdens those communities. CLCPA § 7(2). Furthermore, as plans are developed to reduce reliance on fossil fuels in the State, agencies must prioritize those that reduce greenhouse gas and co-pollutant emissions in disadvantaged communities. Id. at § 7(3). Given the very recent passage of the CLCPA, including several amendments that were not part of the prior pending Climate and Community Protection Act, we recognize that AGC did not have a chance to address the full implications of the law in the PSS. It is critical for the company to correct that deficiency now. The CLCPA sets an end date for the use of natural gas in electricity generation and prioritizes investments in energy storage that displace fossil fuel generation in communities like Sunset Park. See Id. at §§ 1(d), 7(3). A proposal for a gas-fired combustion peaker plant in a community likely to be deemed “disadvantaged,” without an end date or a meaningful plan to incorporate energy storage or renewable energy generation, should not be approved under the CLCPA absent a showing that reliance on fossil fuels is absolutely essential for system reliability and that incorporating storage and renewables is not technologically and economically feasible.
Response:
Multiple comments noted. The Application will discuss the energy reliability and resiliency needs for the local community and demonstrate the compatibility of the proposed Gowanus Repowering Project with State Energy Planning objectives as required in Exhibit 10. The analysis will address reliability deficiencies determined by Con Ed and the NYISO, as well as the results of the recent study prepared by NYSERDA and released by the Public Service Commission on July 1, 2019 (“The Potential for Energy Storage to Repower or Replace Peaking Units in New York State”). See the above response to Comment 1 under Exhibit 9 of the DPS comments. The Applicant is fully aware of the newly enacted Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act which codifies many of the existing energy policy goals previously announced by the State Administration and will demonstrate the project’s compliance with any potentially applicable provisions of the law. The Applicant is also cognizant and understands the City’s new Climate Mobilization Act which will also be discussed in the Application with regard to the requirement to comply with applicable City laws and regulations. Although Article 10 allows for waiver of City laws and rules generally, the Applicant has assured the City Administration that it has no intention to seek such a waiver.
3. The public need for electricity generation must be fully analyzed. For the Siting Board to grant a Certificate, the Applicant must demonstrate the public need for the level of electricity generation AGC proposes in its PSS. If AGC cannot demonstrate a need for this level of electricity generation, the repowering cannot be found to be in the public interest. See N.Y. P.S.L. § 168(3)(a)-(b); 16 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1000.12(b). Even if AGC can identify a need for some new generation, it must also demonstrate
44
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 that a lower level of generation is not viable, and study whether some or all of that need can be met through alternatives like demand reduction, renewable energy sources, or battery storage. The PSS relies on the NYISO Draft Comprehensive Reliability Report for 2019–2028 to demonstrate need. PSS at 2-4. That report examines a scenario in which all peaking units currently emitting NOx at levels above the new limit to be set by the forthcoming DEC regulation simply shut down.11 It is absurd for AGC to rely on this worst-case scenario to establish the need for generation from the Gowanus plant, essentially assuming that no other facility will install pollution controls or battery storage to comply with the rule. In fact, such a scenario is likely impossible, as the proposed DEC regulation provides for a review by NYISO of each affected facility’s proposed compliance plan, and allows for extensions on compliance for certain facilities to the extent NYISO determines it is necessary to maintain grid reliability. See Peaker Rule at 227-3.6. Instead, AGC should examine scenarios in which some plants continue operating by installing new pollution controls or utilizing other compliance options set forth in the proposed DEC rule such as incorporating storage and/or renewables to calculate a lower effective rate for NOx emissions.12 Furthermore, the NYISO Draft Report itself notes that “the deficiencies could potentially be met by a number of combinations of solutions including generation, transmission, and demand-side (e.g., energy efficiency and demand response) measures.” NYISO Draft Report at 29. In considering future energy needs, AGC must incorporate state mandates and initiatives that will both add large-scale renewable electricity generation, particularly offshore wind, to the grid as well as reduce demand through various means. The PSS fails to incorporate these factors into its calculation of future need. At the very least, AGC should study the remaining need for generation under scenarios including a) additional transmission upgrades already under development, which are described in the NYISO Draft Report; b) additional energy efficiency measures that will be incorporated in the load pocket as required under the PSC efficiency order13 as well as under New York City’s recently passed law requiring substantial energy efficiency improvements for large buildings14 and the CLCPA15; and c) additional local demand response resources. AGC must also study how new energy storage and off-shore wind generation projects that are currently in development, some of which have requests to interconnect at Gowanus,16 will affect the need for generation from the Gowanus Plant. Finally, the Application should limit its needs assessment to the relevant load pocket – Greenwood / Fox Hills 138 kV TLA – rather than a broader area like Zone J or Southeast NY.
Response:
Multiple comments noted. See responses to Comments 1 and 2 above.
4. The alternatives analysis is artificially limited and must include meaningful consideration of storage and renewable energy. AGC must conduct a thorough alternatives analysis to ensure any approved repowering project at the Gowanus Plant promotes public health and welfare. See 16 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1000.5(l)(2)(x). AGC’s plan to consider only the two alternatives of its proposed project and retrofitting the Gowanus and Narrows Plants according to the requirements of the Peaker Rule does
45
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 not comply with Article 10’s requirements. See PSS at 4-20; N.Y. P.S.L. §§ 163(f), 164(i); 16 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1001.9. At a minimum, AGC is obligated to undertake a detailed review of the no action alternative. 16 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1001.9(f). Contrary to AGC’s claims, the Peaker Rule does not shield AGC from complying with Article 10’s explicit requirement to consider the no action alternative. PSS at 4-21–4-22. The alternative of retrofitting the existing plants to comply with the Peaker Rule is not, in fact, the no action alternative, because it assumes that AGC will install technology that will allow the plants to continue operating, rather than taking no action, which would require the plants to shut down. AGC’s analysis of the no action alternative must consider statewide emissions and model renewable generation uptake with and without the proposed plant to comply with the requirement that AGC demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with state law and state energy policies and in the public interest. Assuming continued operation of the existing Gowanus and Narrows plants—as AGC intends to do by considering its second alternative rather than the true no action alternative—would therefore would impermissibly skew modeling of no action emissions and renewables uptake. AGC also must identify alternative locations for its proposed project. The Company is incorrect that “[b]ecause the Project is an existing facility, the requirement for the identification and evaluations of reasonable and available alternate location sites is not applicable.” PSS at 4-21; see id. at 4- 22. Article 10 regulations excuse the failure to identify alternative locations in only a single instance, when “a private facility applicant may limit its identification and description to sites owned by, or under option to, such private facility applicant or its affiliates.” 16 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1001.9(a); see id. § 1005.(l)(2)(x). AGC’s alternatives analysis therefore will remain deficient if the Company continues to fail to identify all the sites AGC or its affiliates owns or has options to. Article 10 requires that AGC explain why any such sites would not be acceptable locations for the proposed gas plant. In addition to its failure to consider a range of alternatives related to the size and location of the project, the PSS fails to meaningfully consider source alternatives including storage and renewable energy. Given the state’s energy policy detailed above as well as the public health benefits of emission-free renewable energy generation, this failure is a serious problem that must be corrected. The PSS claims that gas and oil powered turbines are the most reliable method of generating power for the area. PSS at 2-7. However, without a full investigation of alternatives, including but not limited to wind, solar, and storage technologies, that claim remains unverified. While the PSS mentions storage, distributed generation and renewable energy in its pro forma list of alternatives that will be considered in the Application, the description is so vague and the analysis is so limited that the community has no assurance a meaningful analysis of these options will be conducted, nor can it discern what, if any, renewable energy and storage alternatives will be studied. AGC states only vaguely that it will include an “identification and description” of reasonable energy supply source alternatives that are “feasible concerning the objectives and capabilities of the Applicant,” and “an evaluation of the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the proposed facility and the alternatives at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment . . . .” PSS at 4-22. This description improperly allows AGC to only include alternatives it deems feasible, rather than conduct a study of feasibility that would allow the community to independently evaluate the company’s determination. Given the state energy policy discussed above and pursuant to regulations, AGC must include a full study of renewable energy and storage alternatives. 16 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1001.9(c)(2). It should study standalone
46
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 storage, offshore wind generation and storage, and distributed generation to determine the feasibility of these alternatives to a repowering that relies only on natural gas combustion. The PSS should clearly identify that it will conduct an in-depth study of these alternatives, including a full cost comparison that considers incentives available for storage and renewable generation, their reliability impacts, and their resilience value, in addition to their impacts on air quality and public health in the community. AGC must also consider whether the generation needed by the community could be met by a smaller generating facility, in accordance with the public need analysis. See id. at § 1001.9(c)(3).
Response:
Multiple comments noted. See responses to Comments 1 and 2 above, as well as the response to Comment 1 under Exhibit 9 of the DPS Comments.
5. Studies of air emissions and environmental justice issues must be more detailed. For community stakeholders like UPROSE, two of the most critical sections of the PSS are the analysis of air emissions and the environmental justice section. Both sections are extremely vague and lack the level of detail required under Article 10 and implementing regulations.
a. AGC’s analysis of air emissions does not contain enough information to allow for meaningful comment by community stakeholders. See PSS at 4-34–4-39. The PSS section on air emissions is extremely vague and lacks critical elements, including failing to explain how AGC will assess compliance with key air emission regulations. Id. at 4-34–4-36. Likewise, the PSS does not have the detail that would allow the public to evaluate its modeling, omitting critical information, such as AGC’s proposed methodology or inputs. Id. at 4-35–4-39. Without these key elements, groups such as UPROSE cannot begin to understand how AGC’s proposal will affect the quality of the air the community breathes. Among the deficiencies of the PSS, two key failings stand out. First, AGC does not explain how emissions from the existing Gowanus and Narrows facilities are being considered. As is discussed above in Section I, in evaluating impacts to air emissions, AGC cannot give itself credit for closing two existing plants that independently would will be required to control their emissions or close by 2023–25. Second, AGC appears to intend to provide only the amount of carbon dioxide the proposed project will emit and the rate of those emissions. PSS at 4-37. This ignores other critical greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane. Indeed, AGC must evaluate the emissions from the full life cycle of all greenhouse gases the proposed project might emit and compare those values with all project alternatives. Article 10 requires that AGC conduct a complete air emissions analysis. 16 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1001.17. The information the Company has provided to date falls woefully short of that requirement and makes it impossible for the community to begin to understand and comment on how AGC’s project could affect air quality.
47
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 b. AGC states that it plans to conduct an environmental justice analysis, as is required when, as here, locations within the study area meet the DEC criteria for Potential Environmental Justice Areas. AGC also commits to working closely with relevant agencies and community leaders in doing that analysis. Clearly such assistance is necessary, because the description of the proposed analysis in the PSS is extremely vague and lacks many descriptions, explanations and identifications required by Article 10 regulations that would allow the community to understand the planned scope of the analysis and meaningfully comment at this stage. As an initial matter, while AGC does identify environmental justice areas, it states that it used 2010 census data “updated with 2015 data.” See PSS at Figure 5. The source of the 2015 data is not clear, but the company’s map submitted as Figure 5 identifies a smaller portion of the study area as environmental justice areas as compared to DEC’s Potential Environmental Justice Areas map. It should also be noted that the Gowanus facility is located near the northernmost edge of the Sunset Park neighborhood, which can be seen on the Figure 5 map as predominantly consisting of environmental justice areas to the south and east of the Gowanus facility. The impact study area within the radius from the Gowanus facility also encompasses a large part of the neighborhood to the north, Park Slope, which is mostly removed by an expressway and waterway from the industrial area along the Sunset Park waterfront where the Gowanus facility is located, and is also far wealthier and predominantly white.17 UPROSE has serious concerns that because of the location of the facility on the border of Sunset Park, the impact study area, whether defined at a ½ mile or a full mile from the facility, will not fully capture the disproportionate impacts of the facility on the community that has had to live with the high levels of pollution from both the Gowanus and Narrows plants for nearly fifty years. Despite this, AGC must use the most inclusive and thorough basis for study, and an impact study area of one mile from the facility is appropriate here. The description of the proposed environmental justice analysis in the PSS is completely missing substantive discussions required by the relevant regulations. See 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 487.6; 16 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1000.5(l)(2)(xi). It fails to include, among other things: (1) a narrative explaining the cumulative analysis of air quality proposed to be completed; (2) preliminary demographic, economic and physical descriptions of the impact study area and each comparison area; (3) a detailed description of the proposed approach for evaluating and comparing physical conditions of the impact study area and comparison area; (4) any mitigation of significant adverse and disproportionate impacts that may be considered; or (5) any studies the applicant proposes to undertake to support its final environmental justice analysis. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 487.6(b)(5)(i–vi). Key indicators of cumulative environmental burdens within the impact study area are also missing from the PSS. For example, a review of environmental indicators using the EPA EJScreen tool shows that the area within one mile of the Gowanus facility ranks high with respect to various environmental burdens. As compared to the rest of New York State, it ranks in the 88th percentile for PM 2.5 levels, 84th percentile for diesel particulate matter, and 92nd percentile for traffic proximity and volume. It is also located near numerous Superfund, hazardous waste, wastewater discharge, and other facilities and sites.18 The PSS similarly fails to identify other polluting facilities that will likely be sources included in the required cumulative impact analysis of air quality. See 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 487.7. To
48
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 correct these deficiencies and ensure a comprehensive and thorough environmental justice analysis, the company should include far more substance about how it plans to conduct the required analysis. In addition to the basic requirements set forth in the regulations, AGC must consider the nuances related to the impacts of a peaker plant that operates intermittently as well as the nuances of public health impacts in the context of a changing climate and changing energy policy. With respect to demographics and nearby populations, AGC should include a discussion of changing climate and heat waves on public health and population vulnerability, and examine how heat waves combined with poor air quality days contribute to increased health impacts. It should also include a map and discussion of sensitive receptors in the area such as schools, senior centers, medical facilities, and detention centers. With respect to the impact of emissions, it should particularly focus on the level of harmful emissions on the days the peaker plant is more likely to operate, including an analysis of whether it is more likely to operate on poor air quality days as well as what other nearby sources (including peaker plants) are likely to be contributing to emissions and poor air quality at the same time. The failure of the PSS to include any substance whatsoever regarding its planned environmental justice analysis raises red flags for UPROSE about the Company’s intention to take this analysis seriously. The fact that this is the first Article 10 proceeding to be required to conduct such an analysis in New York City does not relieve AGC of the responsibility to provide a substantive framework in the PSS to help the public understand and comment on its planned analysis. The materials AGC has submitted to date do not comply with the requirements of Article 10 and its regulations and do not provide a basis for approving its proposed project.
Response:
Multiple comments noted. As stated above, the Applicant agrees that the PSS does not contain a great deal of detail with regard to the evaluations to be performed for the Application. The Applicant will conduct a detailed analysis of air pollution impacts as part of the requirements for Exhibit 17 and a complete environmental justice analysis as required by 6 NYCRR Part 487 and the requirements for Exhibit 28. The Applicant met with the DPS, the DEC and the DOH on June 25, 2019 to discuss the protocols for air modeling, the cumulative impact analysis and the environmental justice analysis. There were follow-up discussions with the DEC regarding the air modeling and cumulative impacts analysis protocols. Draft protocols have been or will be submitted shortly to the DEC for further review and will be finalized through the Article 10 Stipulation process with the agencies and interested parties. In addition, the Applicant hopes to meet with UPROSE, with or without the agencies, to discuss both the air and environmental justice analyses to be performed.
Related to the requirements for the identification of the potentially impacted environmental justice community, see the above response to DEC Comment #1 under Exhibit 28.
49
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 Related to consideration of climate change issues, see the above responses to Comments 1 and 2.
Comments of New York State Department of Health (June 27, 2019)
PSS – Exhibit-Specific Comments
Section 4.0: Environmental Analysis
1. The PSS indicates that the Narrows facility will be retired as part of the Gowanus Repowering Project but does not include planned analyses of any potential impacts associated with the retirement. The PSS should be modified to include a plan for analysis of any potential short or long-term impacts, particularly offsite, associated with the removal of power barges at the Narrows facility. Alternatively, should the applicant maintain decommissioning of this facility is without any impacts, the PSS should provide a detailed justification and supporting information.
Response:
Comment noted. The decommissioning of the Narrows facility will have inconsequential environmental effects. When the Narrows facility is decommissioned, the fuel supplies to the power barges will be closed and blocked off to prevent further operation of the combustion units. When it becomes necessary to remove the power barges from Narrows, AGC will make arrangements with an appropriate marine towing service and the barges will be towed away from the Narrows pier for proper disposition.
Section 4.17: Air Emissions
1. Section 4.17 of the PSS indicates that Exhibit 17 of the application will demonstrate that the proposed facility will comply with applicable Federal, State and local regulatory requirements regarding air emissions. The applicant commits to evaluating emissions and concentrations of US Environmental Protection Agency’s criteria pollutants, carbon dioxide, mercury and volatile organic compounds. Additionally, the PSS indicates that a set of non-criteria pollutants to be emitted from the facility will be developed in consultation with the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and NYSDOH. The PSS also indicates that the applicant will conduct near-field dispersion modeling and if necessary a full-impact analysis but does not specify criteria applied for the full-impact analysis. NYSDOH defers to NYSDEC on technical matters related to the conduct of air quality impact analyses, but the applicant should identify what qualifies as a “significant impact” for non-
50
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 criteria pollutants requiring full impact analysis. NYSDOH also requests that the air resource assessment in Exhibit 17 include an evaluation of any potential health impacts associated with short-term exposures to respiratory irritants found in facility emissions. Although the PSS indicates that emissions during facility start-ups and shut-downs will be evaluated, we also suggest that emissions while operating during by-pass of pollution control equipment be presented in the application. Please modify the PSS accordingly.
Response:
Multiple comments noted. As stated above, the Applicant will conduct a detailed analysis of air pollution impacts as part of the requirements for Exhibit 17 and a complete environmental justice analysis as required by 6 NYCRR Part 487 and the requirements for Exhibit 28. The Applicant met with the DPS, the DEC and the DOH on June 25, 2019 to discuss the protocols for air modeling, the cumulative impact analysis and the environmental justice analysis. There were follow-up discussions with the DEC regarding the air modeling and cumulative impacts analysis protocols. Draft protocols have been or will be submitted shortly to the DEC for further review and will be finalized through the Article 10 Stipulation process with the agencies and interested parties. All the specific issues listed in the above comment are and will addressed in the protocols.
With regard to the comment related to bypass of pollution control equipment. There will not be any by-pass. Start-up and shut-down emissions will be included in the analysis of the pollution control equipment.
Section 4.18: Safety and Security
1. Section 4.16 (Pollution Control Facilities) indicates that the two new barges located at the Gowanus facility will have a 26,000-gallon urea storage tank (with 32% urea concentration) with weekly deliveries. NYSDOH suggests that the application include an analysis of potential safety hazards should these tanks fail, spills occur, or a fire or other upset condition occurs. Alternately, the application should present a defensible rationale as to why this evaluation is not required. This information may be appropriately presented in Exhibit 18 (Safety and Security) of the Application. Please modify §4.18 of the PSS accordingly.
Response:
Comment noted. Existing safety and operating plans will be updated to include any additional safety procedures as a result of the proposed Project, including the use of urea and the storage tanks.
51
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758
2. Although Section 4.18.2 of the PSS refers to regulatory requirements for local emergency first responders, the US Coast Guard is not identified as an important stakeholder for any emergency incidents involving bulk storage of fuel oil, including ultra-low sulfur diesel (USLD), on navigable waters. Please modify the PSS accordingly.
Response:
Comment noted. USCG reviews and approves the existing Facility Response Plan (FRP), as well as the Facility Security Plan (FSP), both are combined vessel and facility plans. These will be updated accordingly for the Project. The USCG is listed as a federal stakeholder on the Project’s Notification List and receives all documentation with respect to the Project. There will also be an ongoing regulatory relationship with the USCG during the installation and operation of the proposed Project, as there has been with respect to the existing facilities. Note that as discussed above, the FRP and FSP are deemed Sensitive Security Information under 49 CFR Part 1520.
Section 4.19: Noise and Vibration
1. Section 4.19 of the PSS indicates that since the Gowanus facility is located in a heavily industrialized area, noise impacts from installation and operation are not anticipated. Similarly, the applicant indicates that since the Narrows facility will be shut down, analysis of noise and vibration impacts at the Narrows facility is unnecessary. The PSS should provide additional details to support this assertion for the Narrows facility. The PSS also indicates that the new power barges at Gowanus will be quieter than the existing facility. Accordingly, the PSS indicates that the application will include an impact analysis of sounds associated with construction and operation of the repowered Gowanus facility and associated noise avoidance/mitigation measures per 16 NYCRR 1001.19. For Article 10 projects, the NYSDOH typically requests that applicants consider noise guidelines developed by the World Health Organization (WHO). For Gowanus, NYSDOH suggests the applicant develop tabular noise modeling results inclusive of annual maximum daytime (L16day), annual maximum night (L8night) and annual logarithmic average nighttime (Leqnight) noise levels for sensitive receptors that can be directly compared to WHO guidelines (WHO, 1999; 2009), evaluating potential sleep disturbance and annoyance. Please consider the health-based information contained in the WHO guideline documents and include a discussion of these guidelines in the application as part of the assessment of noise impacts.
Response:
52
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 Comment noted. The Applicant has identified that there are multiple public health benefits associated with the Gowanus Repowering Project given it is replacing older 1970's era less efficient dual fuel generation with new, modern, more efficient natural gas generation equipped with air emissions controls while also retiring 370 MW of fossil-fueled generation (50 MW from Gowanus and 320 MW from the Narrows). In addition, it is anticipated that the new modern equipment will result in lower sound emissions from the Gowanus site. As such, the severity and likelihood of adverse impacts related to noise is low. Regardless, the Application will include a full impact analysis of the sound levels from the new equipment. Sound modeling will also include the anticipated worst case operational noise condition of simultaneous full load operation the eight generating units (590 MW) as this condition may occur 10% of the year.
Section 4.25: Effects on Transportation
1. This section primarily addresses on-land transit. Since this project is in the Gowanus Bay, NYSDOH requests that the applicant includes a description of an analysis of potential shipping and/or recreational watercraft accidents and any proposed avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation strategies.
Response:
Comment noted. The Application will describe that the repowered barges will be constructed elsewhere and transported via water to the pier at the Gowanus Generating Station. Vessel transport of this nature is commonplace and routine along the Brooklyn waterfront. No vessels will be anchored or moored in the navigation channel exiting the Gowanus Canal and therefore there will be no disruption of shipping activities in Gowanus Bay or the Gowanus Canal. When the delivery date for the barges is near, the Applicant will notify the USCG of the scheduled date so that they can provide proper notice for local navigation in the vicinity of Gowanus Bay.
The barges will be connected to the pier and will be protected close to the shore over land under water privately owned by the Applicant. For night time, the barges and piers are well lit so they are easily seen.
Section 4.28: Environmental Justice Evaluation
1. Section 4.28 of the PSS describes the applicant’s proposed analysis to determine whether construction and operation of the project would have a significant adverse and disproportionate effect on potential environmental justice areas under Department of Public Service (16 NYCRR § 1001.28) and Department of Environmental Conservation (6 NYCRR Part 487) regulations. The proposed approach presented in the PSS omits NYSDOH “Updated Guidance for Health Data Review and Analysis Relating to NYSDEC Environmental Justice Requirements for CP-29 and 6 NYCRR Part 487” (NYSDOH, 2017).
53
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 NYSDOH’s Guidance specifically calls for an evaluation of asthma emergency department visits, cancer incidence for four sites, and low birth weight by ZIP code and presents the methodology to present these data for the Impact Study Area (ISA) and four Comparison Areas (CAs).
Response:
Comment noted. The Applicant’s environmental justice analysis will adhere to data collection and analysis requirements specified in the Updated Guidance for Health Data Review and Analysis Relating to NYSDEC Environmental Justice Requirements for CP-29 and 6 NYCRR Part 487 (NYSDOH, 2017).
2. Additionally, the selection of the comparison area is not consistent with NYSDOH’s guidance. NYSDOH’s guidance directs the applicant to ZIP code level health data so the ISAs and CAs should be defined by applicable ZIP codes. Selected CAs should include:
a. They county in which the facility is located;
b. A large regional area, in this case NYS excluding NYC;
c. An area with ZIP codes of the same population density from the same local area; and
d. A comparison made up of ZIP codes surrounding the ISA.
Response:
Comment noted. The identification and selection of the impact study area and comparison areas adhere to the prescribed requirements stated in the Updated Guidance for Health Data Review and Analysis Relating to NYSDEC Environmental Justice Requirements for CP-29 and 6 NYCRR Part 487 (NYSDOH, 2017).
3. For the evaluation of non-criteria pollutants for which there are no Federal or State air quality standards, the applicant should conduct a screening analysis to determine which non-criteria pollutants to include in the cumulative impact analysis. The screening analysis should follow NYSDEC guidance for modelling maximum facility impacts in the ISA of all relevant non-criteria pollutants to determine if any exceed either 10% the NYSDEC Annual Guideline Concentration (AGC) if based on noncancer effects, or 100% of the AGC if based on one-in-one million cancer risk. This screening can be used to determine the
54
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 number of chemicals included in the cumulative analysis in direct consultation with NYSDOH and NYSDEC. NYSDOH reserves the right to provide an alternative toxicity value, if warranted, such as when a pollutant’s AGC is based on the one- in-one million cancer risk but exceeds 10% of a NYSDOH-recommended noncancer health-based guideline.
Response:
Comment noted. The evaluation of non-criteria pollutants has been discussed with DEC and will be performed in accordance with ambient air guidelines and benchmarks applicable to non-criteria contaminants addressed in DAR-1, Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Ambient Air Contamination Under Part 212 (DEC, August 10, 2016). The methods for the impact assessment for non- criteria pollutants is included in the air quality modeling protocol which has been, or will shortly be submitted to DEC, and finalized during the Article 10 Stipulation process.
4. Please modify the PSS accordingly and consult with NYSDOH and NYSDEC on technical elements of these evaluations.
Response:
Comment noted. The Applicant will continue to work with DEC and DOH on the technical elements of the environmental justice analysis, which protocol with be finalized during the Stipulation process. The Applicant will also consult with UPROSE on the protocol.
Section 4.37: Backup Fuel
1. In this section of the PSS, the applicant indicates that ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) is stored in a barge constructed and maintained in accordance with relevant regulations, including those of the US Coast Guard (USCG). NYSDOH suggests the applicant contact the USCG as part of any emergency or contingency plans due to the bulk storage of oil on navigable waters. Please modify Section 4.18(Safety and Security) of the PSS accordingly.
Response:
Comment noted. The fuel barge is and has been in compliance with all USCG requirements, including the FSP and FRP plans.
Section 4.38: Water Interconnection
55
Responses to Comments on PSS Astoria Generating Company, L.P. Gowanus Repowering Project Case No. 18-F-0758 1. The PSS does not identify the New York City agency that will review water interconnection for the proposal. As there will be an increase in use of potable water as part of this project, New York City Department of Environmental Protection and New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene should be engaged on this matter.
Response:
Comment noted. After consultation with the City DEP, it has been determined that the existing water main size is sufficient for the Project’s water needs. No new water mains will be required for the Project. The existing meter is currently out of service and will be repaired or replaced. but AGC is working on getting them repaired and replaced.
56
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
HOLD INFORMATION
NO. DESCRIPTION
1
E E
CONTRACTOR/INSTALLER SHALL TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE PRECAUTIONS TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF ALL PEOPLE LOCATED ON THE WORK SITE, INCLUDING CONTRACTOR'S/INSTALLER'S PERSONNEL (OR THAT OF ITS SUB-CONTRACTOR(S)) PERFORMING THE WORK. 24 RELEASE INFORMATION REV. DATE DESCRIPTION n g d A 06-28-2019 FOR INFORMATION . 13
2 0
0
- O
G -
K S
S 12 \
9 12 1 - 6
2
-
6
s D D e
l i
f
e 1 v i
t a n SHORELINE \ t n e m e g n a r r ISSUE PURPOSE: FOR INFORMATION A
23 l SPECIFICATION: EGEN-001 a r e PROJECT NO.: 13568-017 n e
G I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ENGINEERING \ 13 l 23 DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY a DIRECT PERSONAL SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A c
i DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL n ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS a 28 h OF THE STATE OF ENTER NAME. c e
M 5 TYP. 5 0
. ENTER NAME 3 4 0 7 8 10 ENTER DATE . 21
4 3
\ MY LICENSE RENEWAL DATE s C IS: ENTER DATE C e
l PAGES OR SHEETS COVERED BY i 11 THIS SEAL: F
THIS DOCUMENT ONLY. e v i
t 9 a
N CAD FILE NAME: SSK-GO-002.DGN 27 -
21 PREPARED BY: GMH s g
n 16 REVIEWED BY: CHKD i w
a APPROVED BY: APPD r
D 2
22 ANY MODIFICATION OR ADDITION TO THIS 3 DRAWING BY AN ORGANIZATION OTHER THAN 0
. 6 SARGENT & LUNDY, IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY 4 OF SARGENT & LUNDY. \ S T N E
M 25 U C O D
N G I S E D
0 . 4
\ SARGENT & LUNDYLLC n g 55 EAST MONROE STREET i B CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603-5780 B s e D 4 l 4 a u x t 4 p e 3 c n - o C E
e P O z B i S s u - n a r w e o d G r o
- B PROJECT
7 n 1 o i 0 - t 8 a 6 t GOWANUS GENERATING STATION 5 S 3 o
1 r ASTORIA GENERATING COMPANY, L.P. \ c 0 n i 1 e M BARGE BOP 0 G n ) 2
r l - 0 e a ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION t i 3 PRELIMINARY
s r - 4 a e
E p 0 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
\ m 1 BARGE (275' X 89') 8 EXISTING FIRE WATER EQUIPMENT 15 NOT USED 22 EXISTING GAS METERING STATION I 1 : a ( e A A t t DRAWING TITLE a I a 2 DEMINERALIZED TRAILERS (8.5' X 53') 9 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM (22' X 21') 16 PUMP ROOM (22' X 21') 23 EXISTING A/G GAS PIPING d S D N \ H n c A M
1 o GOWANUS OVERVIEW P
EXISTING CONTROL ROOM T l , i 3 DEMINERALIZED WATER TANK (70' DIA) 10 17 NOT USED 24 NEW A/G GAS PIPING 8 0 n s R n S 0 i SITE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT 2 \ g - v : 138 kV SOUTH ROUTE O 1 7 \ e 4 EQUALIZATION TANK (15' DIA) 11 EXISTING ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 18 NOT USED 25 d N / 0 R (FEEDERS 42421 & 42423) 1 . 1 2
- : 1 6 0 , PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY / 138 kV NORTH ROUTE 2 0 7 A 5 12 EXISTING FUEL OIL BARGE 19 NOT USED 26 60' 0' 60' 120' 180' 0 4 1 1 UTILITY BRIDGE (FEEDERS 42422 & 42424) DRAWING NUMBER REVISION - O M 0 1 9 0 - G 1 n G / GRAPHIC SCALE - 9 0 D o 6 ELEVATED PLATFORM 13 ELECTRICAL TOWER (20' X 20') 20 NOT USED 27 EQUIPMENT SHELTER (42' X 22') K 6 S G i SSK-GO-002 2 6 s DRAWING SCALE A / S 1 8 m i \ . 1 r v 14 NOT USED 21 EXISTING U/G GAS PIPING 28 EXISTING LIGHT POLES 1" = 60'-0" 2 L . o e 7 EXISTING CITY WATER MAIN STUB-UP SHEET 1 OF 1 / Z F R 6 .
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 16 15 14 13 12 1 1 10 g 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 i
M NOTES: M 1. ALL OF THE INTERCONNECTS (OTHER THAN GAS) TO SHORE WILL BE ADJACENT TO THE GANGWAY. THE GAS INTERCONNECT WILL VARY BASED ON THE BARGE LOCATION CHOSEN.
LI I L
KI I K
2~5' J'
- ,.., ~,, / (I - t, 92'-'./ 7(-r."
..J ..J :,,5' -:'." 12'°1'-•/ t-::'i'-.3"
CTG STACK CTG STACK
'7/'": _, n' ~c □ ~r~~ s=un c1· ✓ 7 2 rL6C[S) 7 DOCK SIDE 7
4 4 H r------10 O't------1 H l - • ., I 1 1 I Ill • - I
t~) I m 16 \. =n T,T I IATI- I . 16 ' :··----. __ t ///·: Ii_ CTG ,-0 ' ' 0-- ' ' I' ,,-•· I' k' ______"•c..l
G1 I I I i11 I 11 G II[] :o: :o: □
~LJJJV HAl~H 0/~IAIR B= □ B'( HATCH - I ~/ST 8 =R ·--.. _ I II IIW D !Ill□ ~ r·------·~· '' -· ·------, ' • I' I_/ '-._J I_/ '-._J ( 15 ' ,-:::, 0 ' ! I I I 12 ~ .' 1 2) I o, c, I ~ L.i"; hi ' I ~ ~ ~ ~ Fl I ~l \ ' I F 'L ______• . " "" WI 5 3 5 ijlj!il'
~I.I I D D :o: :o: -,1□ Ill I II I lh II I Ill Ir-□ LEGEND: :···---.______/_,,-7 1. GAS TURBINE Ii. CTG I ,-0 I •• .- I 0-- ' ' 2. GAS TURBINE GENERATOR 1~ ' ' El I ~1111111 111~1 11111111 ~I I 11 m I II I ~ I / •- •• : E v ·-- j ·--- ' 3. LINE SIDE CUBICLE : . ! . 4. NETURAL CUBICLE I I lllltl [[ (0 . ~ '-= □ -TEI H/,TC'1 5. CO2 SKID ('._) - I - ISi SKID (;'; 6. - ~ 7. WIMS SKID I I I I 16) ~ ~ 8. LIQUID FUEL FORWARDING SKID 4 4 9. LUBE OIL SKID I 0. GT FIN-FAN COOLER (HORIZONTALLY MOUNTED ' ' D 7 8 I I 7 BELOW AIR INLET SKID) D ' ' ! !\ 11. GT FIN-FAN COOLER PUMP SKID (ON UPPER DECK) I'/, I l·I I J, .J L l L ,. I I _ Ii M L______J \,_ = c' 12. STAIR TOWER M=E=-~ & -~MP=PA~V) CANAL SIDE -yp = Pl i'C==:• 13. MAINTENCE SPACE (NOT SHOWN) 14. NOT USED 15. LIQUID FUEL FILTER SKID PLAN AT NAIN DECK 16. SCREW GAS COMPRESSOR SKID
CI I C
04 J.t.N 11 A PRELIMINARY FOR PROPOSAL SOR/TAP ,. F ECO NO / DESCRIPTION DATE B REVISION HISTORY BY gil B ISSU GOWANUS GENERATING STATION '" ,.iil ;o '"-< SIEMENS I EXPORT-COIHROLLED DOCUMENT '"u, THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS lECHNICAL D,,_TA WHOSE -Q-+ -G-_ I ,. EXPORT IS RES1RIC1ED BY THE EXPORT <: ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1979, AS AMENDED (TITI.E SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. I POWER AND GAS 50, U.S.C., APP 2401, ET SEC.) AND IS CONTROLLED ;o'" BY TI UNIGRAPHICS 16 15 14 13 12 1 1 10 g 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I DRAWING Brooklyn Block 663Lot 7 Figure5 ProjectArea Study Brooklyn SCALE IN FEET 1,000 Gowanus/Narrows Generating Station GowanusAreaStudy NarrowsAreaStudy Census Tract Block WaterfrontCensus TractBlock PotentialArea EJ Hospitals StateBoundary Parks &Open Space Completed Upcoming Station Gowanus Generating 7/12/2019 0 2,000 4,000 A LEGEND: Greenway Status S T Potential EJ Area = At least 51.1%the of population reported themselves be to members of minority groups; least or at 23.59% of household the incomes below population the poverty had federal level. Based guidelines on NYS DEC D R S V MA A T I N Y O C L D I V T R A E L NT U N V A F E O T TL B A A A V C N D ISLA D Y O N E N C LZ A P RMY V A R A N TO G L R CA Prospect Park V K SW A 8 8 W AR 1 K P R A T P C T C E E P P S S V O A R O 7 7 P R P V A T C E V P A S 4 RO P V A 3 T S Y 9 W K P N O T L I M A H FT Greenwood Cemetery V T A S H N T I O M T S L MI T HA S 9 3 T T S S N N O T 4 IN L 4 C T 9 S W T S Sunset Park Red Hook A I MB U RecreationArea OL C V A 1 4 V A 3 Gowanus T 5 S . 5 6 0 5 Park 1 . 0 BushTerminal D R E R O H S Y W AV K 3 P E G Narrows D I R Y A B ± 9 11:46:48 AM 11:46:48 9 7/12/201 gtwigg ion\Maps\Report\Fig5_Study_Area.mxd R:\ENBG\00_Proj\E\EasternGen\Gowanus\EasternGenerat