Draft Environmental Impact Statement

LUYSTER CREEK ENERGY PROJECT AT THE ASTORIA GENERATING STATION 18-01 20TH AVENUE QUEENS COUNTY ASTORIA, NEW YORK

SUBMITTED TO New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Permits, 625 Broadway, 4th Floor Albany, New York 12233-1750 Contact Person: Stephen Tomasik (518) 486-9955

APPLICANT Astoria Generating Company, L.P. a USPowerGen Company 300 Atlantic Street, 5th Floor Stamford, Connecticut 06901-3522

PREPARED BY ESS Group, Inc. 401 Wampanoag Trail, Suite 400 East Providence, Rhode Island 02915

ESS Project No. A532-000.02

FILING DATE June 2011

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Luyster Creek Energy Project at the Astoria Generating Station 18-01 20th Avenue, Queens County, Astoria, New York

Submitted To:

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Permits 625 Broadway, 4th Floor Albany, New York 12233-1750 Contact Person: Stephen Tomasik (518) 486-9955

Applicant:

Astoria Generating Company, L.P. a USPowerGen Company 300 Atlantic Street, 5th Floor Stamford, Connecticut 06901-3522

Prepared By:

ESS Group, Inc. 401 Wampanoag Trail, Suite 400 East Providence, Rhode Island 02915

ESS Project No. A532-000.02

Filing Date: June 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND PUBLIC NEED ...... 1

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 5 2.1 The Applicant...... 5 2.2 The Project ...... 5 2.3 Project Location ...... 5 2.4 Existing AGS Description ...... 6 2.5 ConEd Complex...... 6 2.6 Proposed LCEP Equipment Layout and Design...... 6 2.6.1 Project Components...... 7 2.6.1.1 SiemensCT and Heat Recovery Steam Generator ...... 7 2.6.1.2 Demineralized Water System...... 8 2.6.1.3 Fuel ...... 8 2.6.1.4 Exhaust Stack ...... 9 2.6.1.5 Cooling System ...... 9 2.6.1.6 Emission Control Systems ...... 9 2.6.1.7 Utility lnterconnects...... 9 Electric Interconnect...... 9 Gas Interconnect...... 10 Water Supply Interconnect ...... 10 2.6.2 Materials Storage, Handling and Disposal...... 10 2.6.2.1 Water Storage ...... 10 2.6.2.2 Chemical Storage and Handling ...... 11 2.6.2.3 Solid Waste Disposal ...... 11 2.7 Construction Plan and Project Schedule ...... 11 2.8 Construction and Operation Overview...... 12 2.9 Reviews, Approvals, and Other Compliance Determinations...... 13 2.9.1 State/City Environmental Review...... 13 2.9.2 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ...... 14 2.9.3 New York City Department of Environmental Protection ...... 14 2.9.4 New York State Public Service Commission...... 14 2.9.5 Anticipated Notifications, Actions, Permits and Approvals...... 15 2.10 Decommissioning...... 16

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION...... 18 3.1 Geology, Soils and Topography...... 18 3.1.1 Existing Conditions...... 18 3.1.1.1 Topography and Soils ...... 18 3.1.1.2 Surficial Geology ...... 19 3.1.1.3 Geologic Setting and Bedrock Geology ...... 19 3.1.1.4 Unusual Landforms or Geologic Formations ...... 20 3.1.2 Potential Impacts...... 20 3.1.2.1 Short-term Impacts during Construction and Decommissioning ...... 21 Cut and Fill Volumes ...... 21 Excavation Techniques...... 21 Foundations ...... 21 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation...... 21

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION PAGE

Management of Oil and Hazardous Materials...... 22 Potential Soil Contamination ...... 22 3.1.2.2 Long-term Impacts During Operations and Maintenance...... 22 Management of Oil and Hazardous Materials...... 22 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control...... 22 Procedures to Assess and Remediate Potential Soil Contamination ...... 22 Seismic Considerations...... 22 3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation ...... 23 3.1.3.1 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan ...... 23 3.1.3.2 Management of Oil and Hazardous Materials ...... 23 3.1.3.3 Procedures to Assess Potential Contamination and Undertake Remedial Actions...... 24 3.1.3.4 Seismic Considerations ...... 26 3.1.4 References...... 26 3.2 Water Resources ...... 27 3.2.1 Existing Conditions...... 27 3.2.1.1 Surface Waters ...... 27 3.2.1.2 New York City Coastal Zone ...... 27 3.2.1.3 Flood Area Designation...... 27 3.2.1.4 Wetlands...... 28 3.2.1.5 Groundwater ...... 28 3.2.1.6 Water Supply and Wastewater Management...... 29 3.2.2 Potential Impacts...... 29 3.2.2.1 Potential Construction Impacts ...... 29 3.2.2.2 Potential Operational Impacts on Water Supply and Wastewater Discharge...... 29 3.2.2.3 Potential Impacts to Groundwater...... 30 3.2.2.4 Potential Impacts to Surface Waters and Wetlands...... 30 3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation ...... 30 3.2.3.1 Soil Erosion and Siltation...... 31 3.2.3.2 Management of Oil and Hazardous Materials ...... 31 3.3 Biological, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology ...... 32 3.3.1 Existing Conditions...... 32 3.3.1.1 Vegetation and Rare Plant Species...... 32 3.3.1.2 Fish and Wildlife...... 32 Fish...... 32 Birds ...... 33 Mammals...... 36 3.3.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species...... 36 3.3.1.4 Critical Environmental Areas...... 37 3.3.2 Potential Impacts...... 37 3.3.2.1 Vegetation and Rare Plant Species...... 37 3.3.2.2 Fish and Wildlife...... 38 Fish...... 38 Birds ...... 38 Mammals...... 38 3.3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 39 3.3.3 Proposed Mitigation ...... 39 3.3.4 References...... 40 3.4 Climate and Air Quality ...... 40

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION PAGE

3.4.1 Existing Conditions...... 41 3.4.1.1 Climate Characteristics...... 41 3.4.1.2 Topography ...... 42 3.4.1.3 Criteria Pollutants and Existing Air Quality ...... 42 3.4.2 Potential Impacts...... 46 3.4.2.1 Pollutants Emitted from Combine Cycle Combustion Turbine and Auxiliary Boiler .... 46 Nitrogen Oxides...... 47 Sulfur Dioxide ...... 47 Particulate Matter ...... 47 Carbon Monoxide...... 48 Ozone ...... 48 Lead...... 49 Non-criteria Pollutants...... 49 Ammonia ...... 49 3.4.3 Air Quality Regulatory Framework ...... 49 3.4.3.1 State Air Regulations ...... 50 6 NYCRR 200: General Provisions...... 50 6 NYCRR 201-6: Title V Facility Permits ...... 51 6 NYCRR 211: General Prohibitions ...... 51 6 NYCRR 225-1: Fuel Composition and Use: Sulfur Limitations...... 51 6 NYCRR 227-1: Stationary Combustion Installations ...... 51 6 NYCRR 227-2: RACT for Major Facilities of NOX ...... 52 6 NYCRR 231: New Source Review for New and Modified Facilities...... 52 6 NYCRR 242: CO2 Budget Trading Program ...... 53 6 NYCRR 243: CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Permit ...... 53 6 NYCRR 244: CAIR NOX Annual Trading Permit ...... 53 6 NYCRR 245: CAIR SO2 Trading Program ...... 54 6 NYCRR 257: Air Quality Standards...... 54 3.4.3.2 Federal Air Regulations ...... 54 40 CFR 50: National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 54 40 CFR 52.21: Prevention of Significant Deterioration ...... 55 40 CFR 60: New Source Performance Standards...... 55 40 CFR 63: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants...... 56 40 CFR 72-78: Acid Rain Program ...... 57 40 CFR 98: Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting...... 58 3.4.4 AGS Emissions Reduction Strategy ...... 58 3.4.4.1 Siemens H-class Turbine Emissions...... 58 Nitrogen Oxides...... 58 Sulfur Dioxide ...... 59 Particulate Matter ...... 59 Carbon Monoxide...... 59 Ozone ...... 59 Ammonia ...... 59 3.4.5 Potential Emissions ...... 60 3.4.5.1 Combustion Turbine Emissions: Normal Operation ...... 60 3.4.5.2 SiemensCT Emissions: Startup and Shutdown...... 62 3.4.5.3 Auxiliary Boiler Emissions...... 63 3.4.5.4 Annual Project Potential Emissions...... 63

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION PAGE

3.4.5.5 Determination of NSR/PSD Applicability and Emission Netting ...... 64 3.4.6 Emissions Limitations ...... 66 3.4.7 Air Quality Modeling...... 67 3.4.7.1 Model Selection Factors ...... 67 Dispersion Environment ...... 67 Good Engineering Practice Stack Height Determination ...... 67 Cavity Region...... 68 Local Topography ...... 69 3.4.7.2 Models Selected For Use ...... 69 3.4.8 SCREEN3 Modeling ...... 69 3.4.8.1 Operating and Stack Parameters ...... 69 3.4.8.2 Screening Model Application...... 70 3.4.8.3 Screening Results...... 70 3.4.9 AERMOD Analysis ...... 71 3.4.9.1 Refined Modeling with AERMOD ...... 71 3.4.9.2 Results of Refined Modeling with AERMOD ...... 72 3.4.9.3 Elevated Receptor Evaluation ...... 74 3.4.9.4 Air Toxics Evaluation ...... 75 3.4.9.5 Start Up Evaluation ...... 75 3.4.10 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 78 3.4.10.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy...... 79 Direct Emissions from Stationary Sources ...... 80 Direct Emissions from Non-stationary Sources...... 80 Indirect Emissions from Stationary Sources...... 80 Indirect Emissions from Mobile Sources ...... 80 3.4.10.2 Alternatives Analysis ...... 81 3.4.10.3 Mitigation Measures...... 81 3.4.10.4 Implications of Sea Level Rise ...... 81 3.4.11 References ...... 82 3.5 Historic, Cultural and Archaeological Resources...... 83 3.5.1 Existing Conditions...... 83 3.5.1.1 Site History...... 84 3.5.1.2 Known and Potential Cultural Resources on Site...... 84 3.5.1.3 Identification of Historic Aboveground Architectural Properties in the Visual Study Area...... 85 3.5.1.4 Inventory of Historic Properties Eligible for or Listed on the S/NRHP ...... 85 3.5.1.5 Astoria Powerhouse...... 87 3.5.1.6 Other Historic Properties of Local Significance...... 88 3.5.2 Potential Impacts...... 88 3.5.3 Proposed Mitigation ...... 89 3.5.4 References...... 89 3.6 Aesthetic/Visual Resources ...... 90 3.6.1 Existing Conditions...... 90 3.6.1.1 Landscape Settings ...... 90 3.6.1.2 Inventory of Aesthetic Resources of Statewide Significance...... 92 3.6.1.3 Inventory of Aesthetic Resources of Local Significance ...... 94 Randall’s/ Wards Island Park ...... 95 Ralph DeMarco Park ...... 95

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION PAGE

Barretto Point Park (Bronx) ...... 95 Proposed 20th Avenue Bikeway ...... 96 ConEd Ball Fields ...... 96 Major Transportation Corridors ...... 97 3.6.1.4 Major Visible Elements of LCEP...... 98 3.6.1.5 Field Reconnaissance and Photographic Documentation...... 98 3.6.1.6 Selection of Viewpoints for Simulation...... 99 3.6.1.7 Visual Modeling and Simulation ...... 100 3.6.1.8 Visual Simulation Results ...... 101 Visual Screening Along 20th Avenue Bike Lanes ...... 101 3.6.2 Potential Visual Impacts ...... 103 3.6.2.1 Construction ...... 103 3.6.2.2 Operation ...... 103 Night Lighting ...... 104 3.6.3 Proposed Mitigation ...... 104 3.6.4 References...... 104 3.7 Noise...... 105 3.7.1 Existing Conditions...... 105 3.7.1.1 Baseline Ambient Sound Level Measurements...... 105 3.7.1.2 Measurement Location Descriptions and Environmental Conditions ...... 106 3.7.1.3 Results of Ambient Sound Level Measurements...... 106 3.7.2 Noise Regulations and Guidelines ...... 107 3.7.2.1 Noise Regulations: Operation Phase...... 107 3.7.2.2 Noise Regulations: Construction Phase...... 110 3.7.3 Potential Operational Impacts ...... 110 3.7.3.1 Operation Phase: Sound Level Methodology ...... 110 3.7.3.2 Operation Phase: Unmitigated Sound Level Results ...... 112 3.7.3.3 Operation Phase: Mitigation ...... 113 3.7.3.4 Mitigated Operation Phase: Sound Level Results ...... 114 3.7.4 Potential Construction Impacts...... 116 3.7.4.1 Construction Phase: Sound Level Methodology ...... 116 3.7.4.2 Construction Phase: Sound Level Results...... 117 3.7.4.3 Construction Phase: Mitigation ...... 117 3.7.5 Construction and Operation/Monitoring Plan...... 118 3.7.6 Cumulative Noise Assessment ...... 118 3.8 Traffic/Transportation ...... 119 3.8.1 Existing Conditions...... 120 3.8.1.1 Size and Weight Restrictions ...... 120 3.8.1.2 Overweight or Oversize Permit ...... 121 3.8.1.3 Annual Average Daily Traffic ...... 121 3.8.1.4 Bridges and Tunnels...... 121 3.8.1.5 Anticipated Transportation Routes ...... 122 Oversize/Overweight Truck Routes...... 122 3.8.1.6 Public Transportation...... 123 Vicinity Subway Stations...... 124 Vicinity Bus Routes ...... 124 Vicinity Rail Road Stations ...... 124 Vicinity Airports ...... 124

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION PAGE

Vicinity Bicycle Paths...... 125 3.8.2 Pending Developments...... 125 3.8.3 Potential Impacts...... 125 3.8.3.1 Construction ...... 125 3.8.3.2 Barge Deliveries ...... 126 3.8.3.3 Operation ...... 126 3.8.4 Mitigation...... 127 3.9 Socioeconomics...... 127 3.9.1 Population and Housing Characteristics...... 128 3.9.2 Demographic Characteristics of Astoria ...... 128 3.9.3 Economy and Employment ...... 128 3.9.4 Municipal Budgets and Taxes ...... 129 3.9.5 Existing AGS Facility...... 130 3.9.6 Potential Impacts...... 130 3.9.6.1 Population, Housing, Real Estate Values...... 130 3.9.6.2 Potential Construction Impacts ...... 131 Expenditures...... 131 Taxes ...... 131 Employment and Income ...... 131 3.9.6.3 Potential Operation Impacts...... 131 Taxes ...... 131 Employment and Income ...... 132 Electricity Pricing ...... 132 3.9.7 Proposed Mitigation ...... 132 3.10 Environmental Justice ...... 133 3.10.1 Regulatory Background...... 133 3.10.1.1 Public Outreach and Participation...... 133 3.10.1.2 Preparation of an Environmental Justice Analysis...... 134 3.10.2 Existing Conditions...... 135 3.10.2.1 LCEP Vicinity Environmental Quality ...... 135 3.10.2.2 Health Outcome Data Analysis...... 136 Defining the Community of Concern ...... 138 Establishing Comparison Areas Using U.S. Census Bureau Demographic Data ...... 140 Health Outcome Displays for the COC and the Comparison Areas ...... 142 Discussion of Health Outcome Data Displays and Analyses ...... 145 Community Health Profile of Northwest Queens ...... 146 Effects of LCEP on PEJA Burden...... 147 3.10.3 References ...... 149 3.11 Public Safety ...... 149 3.11.1 Existing Conditions...... 149 3.11.1.1 Police Protection...... 150 3.11.1.2 Fire Protection...... 150 3.11.1.3 United States Coast Guard ...... 150 3.11.1.4 Stray Voltage ...... 150 3.11.1.5 Site Traffic...... 151 3.11.1.6 Security...... 151 3.11.2 Potential Impacts ...... 151 3.11.2.1 Construction ...... 151

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION PAGE

Traffic Safety ...... 152 Fire ...... 152 Security ...... 152 Health and Safety...... 152 Inspections ...... 154 3.11.2.2 Operation ...... 154 Traffic Safety ...... 154 Fire ...... 154 Security ...... 155 Aqueous Ammonia Tank...... 155 3.11.2.3 Proposed Mitigation ...... 156 3.11.3 References ...... 156 3.12 Community Facilities and Services ...... 156 3.12.1 Existing Conditions...... 156 3.12.1.1 Police Protection...... 157 3.12.1.2 Fire Protection...... 157 3.12.1.3 Local Emergency Planning Committee ...... 158 3.12.1.4 New York State Emergency Management Office ...... 158 3.12.1.5 United States Coast Guard ...... 158 3.12.1.6 Sanitation Facilities...... 158 3.12.1.7 Educational Facilities...... 158 3.12.1.8 Libraries ...... 162 3.12.1.9 Parks...... 162 3.12.1.10 Hospitals/Emergency Room and Clinics...... 166 3.12.1.11 Water Supply ...... 167 3.12.1.12 Solid Waste...... 167 3.12.2 Potential Impacts ...... 167 3.12.2.1 Police Protection...... 167 3.12.2.2 Fire Protection...... 167 3.12.2.3 Local Emergency Planning Committee ...... 168 3.12.2.4 New York State Emergency Management Office ...... 168 3.12.2.5 United States Coast Guard ...... 168 3.12.2.6 Sanitation Facilities...... 168 3.12.2.7 Educational Facilities...... 168 3.12.2.8 Libraries ...... 169 3.12.2.9 Parks...... 169 3.12.2.10 Hospitals/Emergency Room and Clinics...... 169 3.12.2.11 Water Supply ...... 169 3.12.2.12 Solid Waste...... 169 3.12.3 Proposed Mitigation...... 170 3.12.4 References ...... 170 3.13 Communication Facilities ...... 170 3.13.1 Existing Conditions...... 170 3.13.2 Potential Impacts ...... 171 3.13.2.1 Electric and Magnetic Fields...... 171 3.13.2.2 Microwave Communication Systems ...... 171 3.13.2.3 Television, Radio, Cellular/Personal Communications Systems Telephone Analysis172 3.13.2.4 Federal Aviation Administration...... 172

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION PAGE

3.13.3 Proposed Mitigation...... 172 3.14 Land Use and Zoning ...... 172 3.14.1 Existing Conditions...... 173 3.14.1.1 Regional Setting...... 173 3.14.1.2 Project Area Land Use...... 173 3.14.1.3 Project Area Zoning ...... 174 The City Zoning Resolution...... 174 Performance Standards...... 176 Supplemental Use Restrictions ...... 178 Special Regulations (Airports and Waterfronts)...... 179 Project Interconnections ...... 179 3.14.1.4 Other Project Area Designations ...... 179 3.14.1.5 Consistency with Local Comprehensive Plans ...... 179 New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program ...... 180 Fair Share Provision (Section 203) of the New York City Charter ...... 180 PlaNYC ...... 181 3.14.2 Potential Impacts ...... 181 3.14.3 Mitigation ...... 182

4.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ...... 183

5.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS...... 184 5.1 Alternative Project Size ...... 184 5.2 Alternative Project Location ...... 184 5.3 Alternative Project Layout ...... 185 5.4 Alternative Plant Technologies ...... 186 5.5 Shutdown and Removal of Existing AGS Units ...... 187 5.6 Shutdown of Existing Sources Comparable to the New Source Capacity...... 187 5.7 No Action Alternative ...... 187

6.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES...... 189

7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...... 191

8.0 GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS ...... 193

9.0 EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES ...... 194 9.1 Technological Benefits ...... 194 9.2 Green Design Benefits...... 194 9.3 Cleaner Fuel Usage...... 195 9.4 Summary...... 195

10.0 GREEN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ...... 196 10.1 Environmentally Sensitive Design Options ...... 196

11.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... 198

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION PAGE

TABLES

Table 3.3-1: Summary of Fish Species with At Least One Life Stage Likely Inhabiting Waters in the Vicinity of the Site...... 33 Table 3.3-2: Bird Species Breeding in Survey Block #5851B...... 34 Table 3.3-3: Bird Species Sighted in New York, New York, 2010 Great Backyard Bird Count ...... 35 Table 3.4-1: LCEP Vicinity Attainment Status per 40 CFR 81.333 as of June 2010 ...... 43 Table 3.4-2: Maximum Background Concentration Values (2006-2008) for Queens, New York ...... 44 Table 3.4-3: Maximum Background Concentration Values (2006-2008) for All of New York City with Supplementary New Jersey Data...... 45 Table 3.4-4: 2006-2008 Background Concentration Summary for the Site ...... 46 Table 3.4-5: Operating Parameters...... 60 Table 3.4-6: SiemensCT Maximum Emission Rates at 100% Load on Natural Gas Firing with Duct Burner Off ...... 61 Table 3.4-7: SiemensCT Maximum Emission Rates at 100% Load on Natural Gas Firing with Duct Burner On...... 61 Table 3.4-8: SiemensCT Maximum Emission Rates at 100% Load with ULSD Firing...... 62 Table 3.4-9: SiemensCT – Hourly Emission Rates and Potential Emissions during Startup and Shutdown ...... 63 Table 3.4-10: LCEP Auxiliary Boiler – Hourly Emission Rates and Potential Emissions ...... 63 Table 3.4-11: LCEP Equipment Potential Emissions Summary...... 64 Table 3.4-12: AGS Baseline Actual Emissions (August 31, 2005 to August 30, 2007) ...... 65 Table 3.4-13: LCEP/AGS NSR Applicability Summary ...... 65 Table 3.4-14: LCEP/AGS Proposed Emission Limits...... 66 Table 3.4-15: Results of AERMOD Analysis for the LCEP Equipment...... 73 Table 3.4-16: Results of AERMOD Analysis for LCEP Equipment Compared to NAAQS ...... 74 Table 3.4-17: Elevated Receptor Modeling Results ...... 75 Table 3.4-18: Modeled Start-up Concentrations ...... 77

Table 3.4-19: LCEP CO2 Emission Levels Compared to Global, National, and State Emission Levels (in Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent) ...... 79 Table 3.5-1: Historic Aboveground Architectural Properties/Aesthetic Resources of Statewide Significance in the Visual Study Area ...... 86 Table 3.5-2: New York City Landmarks/Aesthetic Resources of Local Significance in the Visual Study Area...... 88 Table 3.6-1: Categories of Aesthetic Resources of Statewide Significance in Visual Study Area...... 92 Table 3.6-2: Recreational Resources/Aesthetic Resources of Local Significance in the Visual Study Area...... 94 Table 3.6-3: Viewpoint Locations Selected for Visual Simulation ...... 100 Table 3.7-1: Summary of Measured Ambient Sound Levels ...... 107 Table 3.7-2: Operational Noise Limits Based on the City Noise Code...... 109 Table 3.7-3: Maximum Permitted Sound Pressure Levels from the City Zoning Resolution ...... 109

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION PAGE

Table 3.7-4: City Noise Impact Thresholds for Construction Activities ...... 110 Table 3.7-5: LCEP List of Equipment and Unmitigated Sound Power Levels ...... 112 Table 3.7-6: Operation Phase: Unmitigated Sound Levels from the LCEP Compared to Octave Band Limits in the City Zoning Resolution for an M3 District ...... 113 Table 3.7-7: Operation Phase: Mitigated Sound Pressure Levels from the LCEP Compared to NYSDEC Guidelines...... 114 Table 3.7-8: Operation Phase: Mitigated Sound Levels from the LCEP Compared to Octave Band Limits in the NYC Noise Code for Residential Receptors...... 115 Table 3.7-9: Operation Phase: Mitigated Sound Levels from the LCEP Compared to Octave Band Limits in the NYC Zoning Resolution for a M3 District Adjoining a Residential District ...... 115 Table 3.7-10: Operation Phase: Mitigated Sound Levels from the LCEP Compared to Octave Band Limits in the NYC Zoning Resolution for a M3 District...... 116 Table 3.7-11: Construction Phase: Projected Sound Levels ...... 117 Table 3.7-12: Cumulative Noise Assessment due to Operations...... 119 Table 3.8-1: New York City Vehicular Size and Weight Restrictions...... 120 Table 3.8-2: Average Daily Traffic in the Vicinity of the Site ...... 121 Table 3.8-3: Bridges and Tunnels in the Vicinity of the Site...... 122 Table 3.8-4: Bus Stop Locations in the Vicinity of the Site...... 124 Table 3.8-5: Airports in the Vicinity of the Site...... 125 Table 3.9-1: Ethnicity in Long Island City-Astoria and New York City ...... 128 Table 3.10-1: State and Federal Permitted/Regulated Sources in the Vicinity of the Site...... 136 Table 3.10-2 Demographic Profile of Community of Concern and Comparison Areas, 2000 U.S. Census ...... 138 Table 3.10-3 Health Outcome Data Analysis Demographic Profile of Community of Concern and Comparison Areas Table with Comparison Zip Codes Data Shown...... 141 Table 3.10-4 Emergency Department Visits for Asthma in the Community of Concern and Three Comparison Areas from 2006 to 2008 (NYSDOH SPARCS)...... 144 Table 3.10-5 Incidence Rates for Selected Cancer Sites for the Community of Concern and Three Comparison Areas for the 5-year period from 2002 – 2006 (NYS Cancer Registry)...... 145 Table 3.12-1: Fire Stations in the Vicinity of the Site ...... 157 Table 3.12-2: Education Facilities in the Vicinity of the Site...... 159 Table 3.12-3: Libraries in the Vicinity of the Site ...... 162 Table 3.12-4: New York City Parks in the Vicinity of the Site ...... 163 Table 3.12-5: Senior Facilities in the Vicinity of the Site...... 166 Table 3.14-1: Proportion of Dominant Land Uses within the Zoning Study Area ...... 173

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION

FIGURES

Figure 1.0-1 New York (NYISO) Electric Regions Figure 2.0-1 Locus Map Figure 2.0-2 Preliminary Site Plan Figure 2.0-3 ConEd Complex Parcel Ownership/Easement Figure 3.1-1 Aerial Photograph of Site Figure 3.1-2 Soils Figure 3.1-3 Surficial Sediment Figure 3.1-4 Bedrock Geology Figure 3.2-1 Flood Zones Figure 3.2-2 Wetlands Figure 3.4-1 Urban/Rural Land Use Classification (3-Kilometer Radius) Figure 3.5-1 Known Cultural and Archaeologically Sensitive Resources Figure 3.5-2 Historic Aboveground Architectural Properties in Visual Study Area Figure 3.5-3 Historic Resources Photolog Figure 3.5-4 Aerial Photograph of LCEP Site and Vicinity Figure 3.5-5 Aerial Photo Documentation of Astoria Powerhouse Figure 3.5-6 Recreational Resources and New York City Landmarks Figure 3.6-1 Viewpoint Locations Selected for Visual Simulation Figure 3.6-2A VP-1: Visual Simulation from Randalls Island Park (Existing View) Figure 3.6-2B VP-1: Visual Simulation from Randalls Island Park (Proposed View) Figure 3.6-3A VP-3: Visual Simulation from 20th Avenue Bike Lane (Existing View) Figure 3.6-3B VP-3: Visual Simulation from 20th Avenue Bike Lane (Proposed View) Figure 3.6-4A VP-8: Visual Simulation from Barretto Point Park (Existing View) Figure 3.6-4B VP-8: Visual Simulation from Barretto Point Park (Proposed View) Figure 3.6-5 Types of Screening from Representative Viewpoints Not Selected for Visual Simulation Figure 3.6-6 Aerial Photograph of 20th Avenue Bike Lanes Depicting Locations of Views in Photolog Figure 3.6-7 Photo Documentation of Views Along 20th Avenue Bike Lanes Figure 3.7-1 Anticipated Operational Noise Level Contours (Mitigated) Figure 3.8-1 Anticipated Transportation Routes for Oversized/Overweight Truck Deliveries Figure 3.10-1 Potential Environmental Justice Areas Figure 3.10-2 EPA Environmentally Regulated Facilities Figure 3.14-1 Land Use Figure 3.14-2 Zoning Figure 3.14-3 Industrial Business Area and Coastal Zone

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION

APPENDICES

Appendix A Interested and Involved Agencies Appendix B Correspondence Appendix C Air Quality Evaluation and Title V Operating Permit Modification Application Appendix D Sound Survey and Analysis Report Appendix E Public Participation Plan Appendix F Scope of Work Appendix G New York State Department of State Coastal Management Program Coastal Assessment Form and New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program Consistency Assessment Form Appendix H Preparers and Contributors

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is being submitted by Astoria Generating Company, L.P. (AGC), a US Power Generating Company, to support the environmental permitting process for the Luyster Creek Energy Project (LCEP or Project) at the Astoria Generating Station (AGS). AGC is a private energy company based in New York City (City) that is developing and will own (either directly or through a new special purpose entity) and operate the LCEP. AGC’s parent company, US Power Generating Company, currently owns three electric generating facilities in New York, New York (the City), supplying approximately 20% of the City’s electric generating capacity. The US Power Generating Company facilities total over 2,300 megawatts (MW) and provide energy, capacity and ancillary services into the electric markets administered by the New York Independent System Operator. AGC’s City facilities include two generating stations in Sunset Park, Brooklyn – the Gowanus Generating Station and the Narrows Generating Station – and the AGS, located in Queens, which is comprised of five existing generating units, a Fuel Oil Tank Farm (FOTF), and two docks (the A-0 and A-10 docks) (AGS or AGS Facility).

The LCEP is an energy project that will add additional generating capacity to the AGS while reducing environmental impacts. AGC believes that a coordinated improvement of the AGS by the addition of new cleaner technology is the most beneficial way to plan for the increasing load requirements of the City and the eventual retirement of older generating units, while reducing the environmental impacts of the existing AGS Units 2, 3, 4, 5 and GT-1, associated ancillary/auxiliary equipment and associated property (Existing AGS Units) and other displaced facilities. Operation of the LCEP will result in significant environmental benefits and improve system reliability. The LCEP will also advance, and is consistent with, the goals set forth in the Draft State Energy Plan with respect to assuring system reliability, replacement of older capacity, greenhouse gas reductions, reduced electric costs and environmental improvements.

The LCEP is consistent with New York City’s PlaNYC, a 25-year plan that establishes 10 goals for the City’s sustainable future. The plan focuses on five key dimensions: land, air, water, energy, and transportation. The energy goal is to “provide cleaner, more reliable power for every New Yorker by upgrading the energy infrastructure” (NYC, 2010). Four strategies were established to achieve the energy goal: coordinate energy planning, increase efficiency of buildings, expand clean power supply, and modernize delivery infrastructure.

AGC believes that the LCEP is consistent with PlaNYC through the increased efficiency that will be achieved by replacing older less efficient generating capacity at the AGS with a new highly efficient Siemens H-class combustion turbine (SiemensCT) operating in a combined cycle configuration (LCEP Equipment). PlaNYC establishes a target goal of increasing the capacity of cleaner energy supply by 2,000 to 3,000 MW by repowering old plants, constructing new ones, and building dedicated transmission lines (PlaNYC, 2010b). The increase in approximately 400 MW through the LCEP represents 13 to 20% of the total target goal for increased energy capacity.

The Existing AGS Units associated ancillary/auxiliary equipment and associated property are located at 18-01 20th Avenue in Astoria, Queens New York. The Existing AGS Units consist of three dual-fueled (natural gas and No.6 oil) boilers, one natural gas-fueled boiler, and a small simple cycle CT, with a combined generating capacity of approximately 1,300 MW. The FOTF is a parcel consisting of approximately 12.5 acres that is located approximately 2,400 feet to the northeast of the Existing AGS Units. These parcels are connected by utilities and easements and have been determined to be

Copyright © ESS Group, Inc., 2011 j:\a532-000 astoria generating uspg\reports_submittals\deis\06-2011 final filing\deis dec_06-2011.doc Draft Environmental Impact Statement June 2011 contiguous and adjacent for air permitting purposes by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The new LCEP Equipment is proposed to be installed at the FOTF and occupy approximately 10.1 acres on this parcel (Site). A new aboveground fuel oil tank would also be constructed at the FOTF for the storage of ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel. Currently there is approximately 8 million gallons of No.6 oil storage at the FOTF in four tanks for the Existing AGS Units. Those tanks will remain in service. Fuel is currently delivered by barge to the tanks from the adjacent A- 10 dock and will be delivered from the same dock to the new tank. The SiemensCT will be dual-fuel- capable, using natural gas as a primary fuel, with ULSD as backup fuel to be used for up to approximately 30 days annually.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has confirmed that the LCEP will be permitted as a modification to the existing AGS Title V air permit. The air emission reduction strategy for the LCEP is the installation of a new, highly efficient SiemensCT with state-of-the-art add-on emission controls. Existing AGS Unit No. 2 will be retired, and a facility-wide emissions cap will be instituted for the modified AGS Facility. Therefore, the modification will incorporate conditions that limit the overall facility-wide operations and result in a net decrease in NOX and CO emissions, as well as reductions in PM, PM10 and sulfuric acid emissions, as compared to the current existing facility baseline. The emissions of other pollutants will either be reduced slightly or remain unchanged.

The shutdown and permit limitations would be effective upon commercial operation of the LCEP Equipment. Shutdown, for purposes of the LCEP, would be as defined in the current Nitrogen Oxide Reasonably Available Control Technology rule1 (6 NYCRR 227-2.2) and in order to comply with this definition, AGC will incorporate a provision into the modified Title V permit to clearly include a permit condition prohibiting a shutdown emission source from further operation.

The AGS site is well suited for additional electric generating capacity because of the availability of properly zoned land, onsite availability of a natural gas pipeline, and close proximity to a utility switchyard for electric interconnection, an existing municipal water supply, existing sanitary wastewater discharge systems, and the liquid fuel storage infrastructure. These existing features at the AGS will minimize potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of new utility interconnects and reduce ancillary construction because many components currently exist.

The LCEP Equipment is proposed to be installed at the AGS’s existing FOTF and occupy approximately 10.1 acres on this parcel (Site). The capacity of the LCEP Equipment will be approximately 410 MW at International Organization for Standardization conditions. A new aboveground fuel oil tank would also be constructed at the FOTF for the storage of ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD). Currently there is approximately 8 million gallons of No. 6 oil storage at the FOTF in four tanks for the existing boilers at the AGS. Those tanks will remain in service. Fuel is currently delivered by barge to the tanks from the adjacent A-10 dock, and ULSD will be delivered from the same dock to the new tank.

1 Shutdown - “The permanent removal from service of an emission source as evidenced by either a permit condition or provision prohibiting the emission source from further operation, the surrender of the emission source's permit, or the complete deletion of mention of the emission source from the permit of the major facility of which it had formerly been a part with no authorization for operation of the emission source appearing in any other permit.”

To demonstrate that the LCEP will not cause adverse air quality impacts, the emissions from the LCEP Equipment were analyzed using an approved regulatory dispersion model. The results indicated that the emissions from the LCEP are less than the significant impact levels for all pollutants and averaging periods. By definition, when modeled air quality impacts are demonstrated to be insignificant, the emissions from the source cannot be said to cause or contribute to an exceedance of ambient air quality standards.

The LCEP is subject to the following federal, state and local regulatory agency notifications, actions, permits and approvals that serve to protect the environment and the public interest:

Title V Permit Modification (6 NYCRR 201-6) (NYSDEC)

Acid Rain Permit (known as Title IV) (6NYCRR 201-6) (NYSDEC)

SPDES Permit Modification (6 NYCRR 750) (NYSDEC)

SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharge from Construction Activity (including SWPPP) (GP- 10-01) Notice of Intent (NYSDEC)

CO2 Budget Permit (6 NYCRR 242-3) (NYSDEC)

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) NOX Annual Trading Permit (6 NYCRR 244-3) and CAIR SO2 Trading Permit (6 NYCRR 245-3) (NYSDEC)

Updated Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan (40 CFR 112 and 6 NYCRR 612- 614) (NYSDEC)

Bulk Petroleum Storage Tank Permit (FDNY) and Petroleum Bulk Storage Permit (NYSDEC)

New York State Chemical Bulk Storage (NH3 tank) Registration (6 NYCRR Parts 595-599) (NYSDEC)

Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP) Consistency Review (NYSDEC, NYSPSC)

PSL Section 68 Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (NYSPSC)

PSL Section 69 Approval (NYSPSC)

Lightened Regulation Approval (NYSPSC)

Increase water use connection/approval (NYCDEP)

Fire Department Storage Permit (aqueous ammonia <20% concentration) (FDNY)

Modification of Coast Guard Response Plan (United States Coast Guard [USCG])

Notice of Proposed Construction (Federal Aviation Administration [FAA])

Note that this list is based on all expected permits and approvals that may be required for the LCEP. It is possible that some items listed may not ultimately be required or be applicable. If final Project design identifies additional required permits and approvals, they will be applied for and obtained.

The environmental review process governing the LCEP is the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, which requires all state and local government agencies to consider potential environmental impacts equally with social and economic factors during discretionary decision-making (NYSDEC, 2008). A DEIS must be prepared if there is any potentially significant adverse environmental impact. The Scope of Work for the DEIS had been prepared under the review of, and accepted by, the NYSDEC. The development of the DEIS Scope of Work also included a public meeting and Scoping Hearing to obtain comments from the community.

AGC’s approach to developing the LCEP has been one of open communication with the community. As part of this philosophy, prior to the LCEP being introduced to the general public, AGC met with many community leaders, groups, and local politicians, to obtain feedback on potential community concerns and issues the community may have had with previous power generating projects. In addition to the community meetings, AGC also met with the NYSDEC and local elected officials and is arranging meetings with the City Planning Department and the City Department of Economic Development.

Sections of the Astoria community are considered Potential Environmental Justice Areas by NYSDEC. Undertaking any activity requiring a permit in a Potential Environmental Justice Area triggers the obligation on the part of an applicant to conduct an enhanced public participation program. Consistent with its open communication approach, AGC prepared a comprehensive and proactive Public Participation Plan, and submitted it to the NYSDEC with the submittal of the Environmental Assessment Form to initiate the formal review and permitting process. The Public Participation Plan contains commitments by AGC to undertake significant public outreach, prepare a public contact list, widely disseminate information, prepare fact sheets, hold public meetings, take comments continually throughout the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act review process, provide periodic progress reports summarizing public outreach activities to date, update stakeholders on the project status, and respond to questions and comments received. All project documents have been made available through an extensive project website and at public repositories in local libraries and the Community Board office. In addition, comments were encouraged to be provided at public meetings, by mail, through the website, or via the established LCEP hotline. AGC has actively implemented its Public Participation Plan. These extensive efforts have been further supplemented by the analyses in the DEIS clearly demonstrating that the LCEP will not contribute any additional environmental burden on the local Potential Environmental Justice Area.

The LCEP structures have been designed to visually integrate with the surrounding landscape and to serve multiple functions to the extent possible. Compatible colors have been used for the stack, tanks, and site buildings to mitigate potential visual impacts and landscape and architectural treatments have been incorporated into the LCEP Equipment design. Visual simulations prepared indicate that the LCEP Equipment will not have any adverse visual impacts and that it will have very little visibility from virtually all vantage points. The LCEP Equipment will not result in any adverse visual or other impacts to significant historical properties, including aboveground historic architectural resources.

Some of the positive environment features of the LCEP will include:

1. The use of natural gas as a primary fuel.

2. Hybrid electric vehicles to replace station vehicles at retirement, where possible.

3. Plantings at the site to enhance the visual effects.

4. Use of ULSD as a backup fuel for the LCEP Equipment to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less.

5. Collection and reuse of rainwater for irrigation.

6. Incorporation of existing AGC waste recycling programs.

Several alternatives for the LCEP have been evaluated including alternate project size, alternate project location, alternate project layout, alternate combustion turbine size, alternate plant technologies (peaking versus combined cycle, renewable), shutdown and removal of Existing AGS Units, and the “no action” alternative. The LCEP, as proposed, has been determined to be the optimum alternative. Since there is a reduction in air emissions, increase in efficiency of operation due to the SiemensCT technology, addition of additional electric capacity and no significant adverse impacts, the LCEP is also a better alternative than the no action alternative.

In summary, the LCEP will install the most efficient CT combined cycle technology commercially available and include an overall reduction of existing air emissions while providing an overall increase in needed electric generating capacity of approximately 235 MW. All potential environmental effects of a power generating project of this type have been evaluated by AGC including air quality impacts, noise impacts, traffic impacts, wildlife impacts, water impacts, and visual impacts and all analysis have demonstrated either insignificant or beneficial impacts. A summary table of anticipated impacts and proposed mitigation measures is provided below.

Summary of Potential Impacts, Benefits and Mitigation by Resource Area for the Proposed Facility Resource Area Section Impacts/Benefits/ Description No. Mitigation Geology, Soils and 3.1 Potential Impacts • Erosion and sedimentation of disturbed soils into Topography nearby water bodies • Excavation of contaminated soils • Dust generation • Accidental spills or releases of oil and hazardous materials • Seismic events or earthquakes Mitigation • Develop Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan • Develop procedures for remedial actions • Develop a Health and Safety Plan • Develop a Modified Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan • Adherence to local, state and federal building codes for seismic design and good engineering practices

Resource Area Section Impacts/Benefits/ Description No. Mitigation Water Resources 3.2 Potential Impacts • Erosion, siltation, and sedimentation of disturbed soils into nearby water bodies • Spills and releases of oil and hazardous materials Mitigation • Develop a Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan • Develop a Storm Water Management Plan • Installation of erosion control measures • Repair of damaged drainage features (as needed) • Develop a modified SPCC Plan • Restoration and revegetation Biological, Terrestrial 3.3 Potential Impacts • Erosion, siltation, and sedimentation of disturbed and Aquatic Ecology soils into nearby water bodies • Spills and releases of oil and hazardous materials • Negligible impacts to vegetation • No impacts to any rare plant species • Negligible impacts to fish • Minimal impacts to birds due to collisions with construction vehicles, stacks and buildings • Minimal impacts to mammals due to collisions with construction vehicles and displacement Mitigation • Installation of erosion control measures • Coverage under Stormwater General Permit for Construction Activities • Best Management Practices to control storm water runoff • Stabilization of disturbed soils Climate and Air 3.4 Potential Impacts • No significant adverse impacts Quality • Emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, CO, VOCs and Pb for combustion of ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) and natural gas • Emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and VOCs for combustion of natural gas Mitigation • Factory-installed emission controls and technologies, as well as add-on controls • Use of natural gas, a low carbon intensity fossil fuel • Limitation on the use of fuel oil, which is limited to ULSD • Most efficient, commercially available combustion turbine to limit CO2 emissions • Unit Specific emissions limits • Shutdown/retirement of existing AGS Unit 2 • Displacement of other less efficient Existing AGS Units to reduce CO2 emissions Historic, Cultural and 3.5 Potential Impacts • No significant adverse physical impacts Archaeological Mitigation • Mitigation is not warranted Resources Aesthetic/Visual 3.6 Potential Impacts • Temporary impacts due to large cranes for the Resources movement of materials and placement of Project components during construction • No significant adverse effects during operation

Resource Area Section Impacts/Benefits/ Description No. Mitigation Mitigation • Use of equipment that is consistent in appearance and scale with existing, energy-related structures in the immediate vicinity • Use of compatible colors for the stack, tanks, and Site buildings to minimize visual impacts • Incorporation of landscape and architectural treatments into Site design Noise 3.7 Potential Impacts • Potential exceedances of octave band limits within the NYC Zoning Resolution with only basic noise control features during operation • No significant adverse effects during construction Mitigation • Incorporation of various noise control features into the Site design, including acoustically-rated structures, sound barrier walls, and lagging of the steam duct from the steam turbine / generator to the air-cooled condenser • Adoption and implementation of a Noise Mitigation Plan during construction • Implementation of a post-construction Noise Monitoring Plan Traffic/ 3.8 Potential Impacts • No impacts to either the surrounding communities Transportation or the local transportation network during construction • Minimal impacts during operation Mitigation • Significant traffic impacts due to equipment delivery will be minimized by the use of waterborne delivery during construction • If necessary, deliveries of large equipment will scheduled for off-peak hours and coordinated with local officials for traffic control • If necessary, coordination with NRG Repowering Project and selection of a local traffic coordinator Socioeconomics 3.9 Potential Impacts • No significant impacts on area populations, housing or real estate values Mitigation • Additional mitigation is not warranted due to the benefits that will be realized by this Project Environmental Justice 3.10 Potential Impacts • No additional environmental burden on the local Potential Environmental Justice Areas. Benefits • Decrease in annual air emissions from the AGS Facility • Enhanced energy reliability during peak load conditions • Green design considerations including green building techniques and renewable/conservation energy strategies Mitigation • Additional mitigation is not warranted due to the benefits that will be realized by this Project Public Safety 3.11 Potential Impacts • No significant adverse impacts to either public safety or security

Resource Area Section Impacts/Benefits/ Description No. Mitigation Mitigation • Site access limited to station personnel or authorized visitors • Proper grounding techniques within and around Site components to limit stray voltage • Adherence by Facility employees and construction personnel to posted speed limits and safe driving procedures • Implementation of a biometric transportation worker identification credential system • Continued and on-going coordination with U.S. Department of Homeland Security, LEPC, and SEMO to develop additional measures to enhance Site security Community Facilities 3.12 Potential Impacts • No adverse impacts during construction and and Services operation Mitigation • No additional mitigation measures are warranted Communication 3.13 Potential Impacts • No adverse impacts due to electric or magnetic Facilities fields from the Facility during operation • No adverse impacts to microwave communication systems • No adverse impacts to telecommunications systems • No adverse impacts to FAA communications Mitigation • No additional mitigation measures are warranted Land Use and Zoning 3.14 Potential Impacts • No adverse impacts, since the Facility can be constructed “as-of-right” and no special use permits are required Mitigation • No additional mitigation measures are warranted

1.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND PUBLIC NEED

Astoria Generating Company, L.P. (AGC), a US Power Generating Company, plans to add additional generating capacity to its Astoria Generating Station (AGS or AGS Facility) while reducing environmental impacts. The Luyster Creek Energy Project at the Astoria Generating Station (LCEP or the Project) consists of the installation of a new highly efficient Siemens H-class combustion turbine (SiemensCT) operating in a combine cycle configuration (LCEP Equipment) with a generating capacity of approximately 410 megawatts (MW) at International Organization for Standardization conditions, and an emissions reduction strategy for the existing AGS.

The following are key terms that will be used hereafter in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS):

ConEd Complex: Approximately 318 acres north of 20th Avenue in Astoria, NY that has been the location of energy production activities since 1899 and is currently occupied by four electric generating facilities (AGS, New York Port Authority (NYPA) [retired], NYPA 500 MW Combined Cycle Plant, and NRG), two ConEd switchyards, and ConEd’s Transmission and Distribution Service Center.

AGS or AGS Facility: The Astoria Generating Station, which includes the Existing AGS Units, Fuel Oil Tank Farm (FOTF), existing A-0 and A-10 docks, and the easement between the Existing AGS Units and the FOTF.

Existing AGS Units: The existing AGS Units 2, 3, 4, 5 and GT-1, associated ancillary/auxiliary equipment and associated approximately 17-acre parcel.

FOTF: Fuel Oil Tank Farm, approximately 12.5 acres where existing fuel oil is stored and the LCEP Equipment will be built.

LCEP or Project: The Luyster Creek Energy Project at the Astoria Generating Station.

LCEP Equipment: The SiemensCT, heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), steam turbine (ST), transformers, air cooled condenser, fuel oil tank, storage tanks, compressors and utility connections, and other associated ancillary/auxiliary equipment.

SiemensCT: The Siemens H-class Combustion Turbine

Site: The footprint of the LCEP Equipment, approximately 10.1 acres.

The Existing AGS Units 2, 3, 4, 5 and GT-1, associated ancillary/auxiliary equipment and associated property (Existing AGS Units) are located at 18-01 20th Avenue in Astoria, Queens New York. The Existing AGS Units consist of three dual-fueled (natural gas and No. 6 oil) boilers, one natural gas-fueled boiler, and a small simple cycle CT, with a combined generating capacity of approximately 1,300 MW. The FOTF is a parcel consisting of approximately 12.5 acres that is located approximately 2,400 feet to the northeast of the Existing AGS Units. These parcels are connected by utilities and easements and have been determined to be contiguous and adjacent for air permitting purposes by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The new LCEP Equipment is proposed to be installed at the FOTF and occupy approximately 10.1 acres on this parcel (Site). A new aboveground fuel oil tank would also be constructed at the FOTF for the storage of ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel.

Currently there is approximately 8 million gallons of No. 6 oil storage at the FOTF in four tanks for the Existing AGS Units. Those tanks will remain in service. Fuel is currently delivered by barge to the tanks from the adjacent A-10 dock and will be delivered from the same dock to the new tank. The SiemensCT will be dual-fuel-capable, using natural gas as a primary fuel, with ULSD as backup fuel to be used for up to approximately 30 days annually.

The New York State Reliability Council requires that 80%2 of the electrical power in New York City (City) or Zone J be supplied by units dedicated to supplying Zone J for system reliability. Figure 1.0-1 shows the 11 NYISO electrical regions encompassing the state of New York. The Existing AGS Units are older, less efficient units that are generally used for reliability and high electric load days. Because the SiemensCT is the most efficient unit commercially available, it will displace the operation of other generating units in the system, including both the older units in the City (including the Existing AGS Units) and also existing combined cycle units which, even though more efficient than older steam generating units, are not as efficient as the LCEP Equipment. This displacement will provide a tremendous environmental benefit in reduced air emissions resulting from the generation of electricity. In addition to the environmental benefit, the cost of production of electricity would be reduced due to the higher efficiency of the LCEP Equipment. Load profiles and existing capacity resources in the City require that the City have quick start and intermediate load generation capability to meet demand. The LCEP Equipment will be designed to startup and shutdown quickly, and have greater operational flexibility than the standard combined cycle facilities currently operating in the City. This flexibility will reduce emissions during startup and shutdown periods, and allow the LCEP Equipment to be shut down if there are more economical sources available to operate during uneconomic periods.

The LCEP is consistent with New York City’s PlaNYC, a 25-year plan that establishes 10 goals for the City’s sustainable future. The plan focuses on five key dimensions: land, air, water, energy, and transportation. The energy goal is to “provide cleaner, more reliable power for every New Yorker by upgrading the energy infrastructure” (NYC, 2010). PlaNYC establishes a target goal of increasing the capacity of cleaner energy supply by 2,000 to 3,000 MW by repowering old plants, constructing new ones, and building dedicated transmission lines (PlaNYC, 2010b). The increase in approximately 225 MW as a result of the LCEP represents approximately 7 to 12% of the total target goal for increased energy capacity.

The LCEP Equipment is planned to be operational to meet any anticipated need for capacity in 2014. The 2010 Reliability Needs Assessment Report prepared by the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) provides a long range reliability assessment of both resource adequacy and transmission security of the New York bulk power system over a ten year planning period. While the report does not explicitly call for new generation in Zone J in 2014/2015, that prediction is premised on many assumptions including certain transmission and generation additions being completed, Indian Point is not retired, and load growth comports with NYISO forecast. The report states that pending regulatory initiatives could result in unanticipated retirements of New York capacity. This would increase the need for new capacity. To facilitate the emissions reduction strategy, the potential emissions from this unit will be offset by the

2 See the New York Independent System Operator Report “Locational Minimum Installed Capacity Requirements Study, 2011 – 2012 Capability Year, Draft January 14, 2011 and New York Independent System Operator Report “Locational Minimum Installed Capacity Requirements Study, 2010 – 2011 Capability Year, January 7, 2010

Page 2 Copyright © ESS Group, Inc., 2011 j:\a532-000 astoria generating uspg\reports_submittals\deis\06-2011 final filing\deis dec_06-2011.doc Draft Environmental Impact Statement June 2011 shutdown of existing AGS Unit 2, and enforceable permit limitations or shutdown of Units 4, and 5. The shutdown of existing AGS Unit 2 and permit limitations on Units 4 and 5 would be effective upon commercial operation of the SiemensCT. Shutdown for purposes of the LCEP would be as defined in the current Nitrogen Oxide Reasonably Available Control Technology (NOX RACT) rule (6 New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations [NYCRR] 227-2.2). This rule requires that to qualify as “shut down” the emission source must be removed from service “…as evidenced by either a permit condition or provision prohibiting the emission source from further operation, the surrender of the emission source's permit, or the complete deletion of mention of the emission source from the permit of the major facility of which it had formerly been a part with no authorization for operation of the emission source appearing in any other permit.”

In order to comply with this definition, AGC will accept a provision in its modified AGS Title V Permit prohibiting any shutdown emission source from further operation. AGC conducted a high level estimate and determined the cost to physically remove the shutdown Units 1 and 2 to be approximately $15 million and therefore has determined that removal of the Existing AGS Units after shutdown is not economically justified or necessary to confirm that the units will not be operated.

A summary of the total potential emissions resulting from the proposed reductions in potential emissions from the Existing AGS Units and the potential emissions from the SiemensCT is presented in Section 3.4. The DEIS also quantifies the size of the SiemensCT and the relative increase in generating capacity of the total facility after the shutdown of existing AGS Unit 2.

All of Queens County, New York, including the AGS Facility is located in a nonattainment area for ozone

(O3) and particulate matter (PM) with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) defines nonattainment areas as regions in which air pollution levels persistently exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The LCEP will not trigger review under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or Nonattainment New Source Review (NANSR) regulations because AGC will commit to enforceable permit restrictions that limit the increase in potential emissions of regulated pollutants below their respective significant increase thresholds.

One of the benefits of the LCEP is that it will provide new, high efficiency, clean electric generation, while reducing the emissions of criteria pollutants. The potential emissions resulting from the additional generating capacity will be offset by implementing the strategies described below. These actions will fully address community concerns and ensure that total air emissions will be reduced by a combination of methods, including:

1. Use of a high efficiency, low emissions SiemensCT.

2. Establishment of enforceable emissions limits on existing AGS Unit No. 4 and 5.

3. Shutdown/retirement of existing AGS Unit 2.

4. A permit cap on the sulfur content of the fuel oil fired.

5. The LCEP Equipment will employ air cooling; there will be no air emissions from the cooling system, the use of wet cooling would result in additional particulate emissions.

The LCEP Equipment will be electrically interconnecting to the grid via existing connections from the Existing AGS Units. As such, the SiemensCT interconnection should be easily achievable.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT

The LCEP is proposed by AGC to improve the AGS Facility through the addition of approximately 410 MW of new (net 235 MW), cleaner, state-of-the-art electric generating equipment, while reducing the actual net emissions from the AGS, located on a larger site that has been developed by Consolidated Edison Company of New York in Astoria in northwest Queens (the ConEd Complex).

2.1 The Applicant

AGC will develop, own and operate the LCEP. AGC is a wholly owned subsidiary of US Power Generating Company, a private company whose business purpose is to own and operate electric generating facilities. The company owns facilities in New York and currently provides approximately 20% of the City electric generating capacity. AGC owns three operating electric power generating facilities in the City: the AGS, the Gowanus Generating Station, and the Narrows Generating Station. The AGC assets have an aggregate summer net capacity rating of 2,098 MW and a winter net capacity rating of 2,364 MW. The facilities sell all of their energy, capacity and ancillary services into the markets administered by the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO).

2.2 The Project

The LCEP Equipment will be located on a portion of the FOTF, a parcel of approximately 12.5 acres that is approximately 2,400 feet to the northeast of the Existing AGS Units. These parcels are connected by utilities and easements and have been deemed contiguous and adjacent for air permitting purposes by the NYSDEC. The LCEP Equipment is proposed to be installed at the FOTF and occupy approximately 10.1 acres on this parcel. The LCEP Equipment will fire natural gas as its primary fuel and will utilize a supplementary natural gas-fired HRSG. A new aboveground fuel oil tank will also be constructed on the Site for the storage of ULSD fuel oil as a backup fuel for the SiemensCT. Currently there is approximately 8 million gallons of No. 6 fuel oil storage capacity at the FOTF in four tanks for the existing boilers at the AGS Facility. The existing No. 6 fuel oil storage tanks will remain in service. Fuel is currently delivered by barge to the tanks from the adjacent A-10 dock and will be delivered from the same dock to the proposed ULSD storage tank.

2.3 Project Location

The Site is located within the AGS Facility in Queens, New York. Figure 2.0-1 shows the Site on a United States Geological Survey (USGS) base map. Figure 2.0-2 shows the preliminary site plan. The Site is located within the larger ConEd Complex which is bounded on the north and west by the East River, to the east by Luyster (Steinway) Creek and 37th Street, and to the south by 20th Avenue. The entrance to the ConEd Complex is located at 18-01 20th Avenue. The LCEP Equipment will be located approximately 2,400 feet to the northeast of the Existing AGS Units. The Site is located approximately one and one-half miles west of LaGuardia Airport and one mile northeast of the Triborough Bridge, also known as the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge.

2.4 Existing AGS Description

The Existing AGS Units are utilized to meet electric demand and maintain electric grid stability within the City. The existing AGS includes four large boilers and one simple cycle CT. Existing AGS Units 2, 3, 4, and 5 are boilers rated at 1,795, 3,984, 4,074, and 4,094 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr), respectively. Three of the four Existing AGS Units (Units 3, 4, and 5) are fired by No 6. fuel oil and natural gas, while existing AGS Unit 2 fires natural gas only. Steam from the four boilers is used to drive four STs to generate electricity. The simple cycle CT is rated at 243 MMBtu/hr and is fired by natural gas only.

2.5 ConEd Complex

The ConEd Complex occupies approximately 318 acres and has been the location of energy production activities since the late 19th century.

In 1899, the Astoria Light, Heat and Power Company acquired lands north of Winthrop Avenue (now 20th Avenue), including the Site. Construction of a manufactured gas plant began in 1903 to supply the expanding fuel (gas) needs of the New York metropolitan area across the East River and replace existing manufactured gas plants in the more heavily populated Borough of Manhattan.

In 1936, the Astoria Light, Heat and Power Company merged into ConEd, formerly called Consolidated Gas Company. Most of the buildings associated with the former Astoria Light, Heat and Power Company were demolished in the 1950s, when the ConEd Complex was redeveloped and the existing electric power generation-related buildings were constructed. Existing AGS Units 1 and 2 were commissioned in 1953. Existing AGS Units 3, 4, and 5 were commissioned in 1958, 1961 and 1962, respectively.

The ConEd Complex is currently occupied by two other electric generating facilities (the NYPA 500 MW Combined Cycle Plant and the NRG Energy (NRG) Astoria Gas Turbine Facility), along with two ConEd switchyards, and ConEd’s Transmission and Distribution Service Center and NYPA’s Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility. The areas occupied by the various entities are shown on Figure 2.0-3.

2.6 Proposed LCEP Equipment Layout and Design

Figure 2.0-1 depicts the Site on a USGS digital raster grid (Central Park Quad). Figure 2.0-2 depicts a preliminary site plan and the locations of the principal components of the LCEP Equipment. Additional smaller ancillary structures will also be located within the LCEP Equipment footprint area.

The LCEP structures have been designed to visually integrate the Project with the surrounding landscape and to serve multiple functions to the greatest extent practicable. Compatible colors will be used for the stack, tanks, and site buildings to mitigate potential visual impacts. In addition, landscape and architectural treatments are incorporated into the LCEP Equipment design. Further discussion of the potential visual impacts and mitigative design strategies are detailed in Section 3.5 and Section 10.0.

New permanent on-site parking spaces will be provided for operational staff and visitors. Access to the Site will continue to be via the existing entrances to the ConEd Complex on 20th Avenue, which is the main entrance, and via 31st Street, Queens, New York.

2.6.1 Project Components

The LCEP Equipment will consist of the following:

SiemensCT

Finfan Cooler

Supplementary fired (natural gas) HRSG

ST operated in a combined cycle configuration

Air cooled condenser

Natural gas compressor

Station and main transformers

Auxiliary steam boiler

Demineralized water storage tank

Fire water storage tank (if required)

Fuel oil storage tank

Ammonia storage tank (19% aqueous)

Exhaust stack with emissions controls

Utility interconnections

2.6.1.1 SiemensCT and Heat Recovery Steam Generator

The SiemensCT design results in very efficient operation in combined cycle of 60% or

greater. This high efficiency, combined with the dry low NOX can annular system design, results in reduced emissions per unit of energy produced. A new compressor and advanced blade design also contribute to the overall efficiency as does the advanced materials that allow for higher temperature operation. Air cooling, fast startup and cycling capability result in improved operations and improved turn down capability, resulting in higher efficiency and lower emissions at partial loads. The HRSG will be coupled with the SiemensCT and be capable of supplemental duct firing with natural gas. Exhaust from the SiemensCT will flow through the HRSG, which will extract heat from the hot gases to generate steam that will be used to operate the ST.

2.6.1.2 Demineralized Water System

Demineralized water will be injected into the combustor of the SiemensCT when firing on

ULSD to further reduce NOX emissions. In lieu of building an entire, permanent water treatment system, the LCEP Equipment will use portable trailer-mounted reverse osmosis and mixed resin bed polisher trains. The system removes minerals in the municipal water supplied to the Site by the City municipal water supply system to make it suitable for injection into the SiemensCT. Even “clean” municipal water supplies require additional pre-treatment to remove minerals before the water can be utilized in the system. The demineralization system catalysts are regenerated through a chemical process by the system supplier on a regular basis at the vendor’s off-site facility. Use of a portable system reduces the need for on-site chemical delivery and storage and waste water disposal that would be required. The trailers will be located inside the fence at the Site to provide easy access for removal for off-site regeneration.

2.6.1.3 Fuel

Natural gas will be utilized as the primary fuel, with ULSD as a backup fuel for the SiemensCT. Natural gas will be provided via an existing supply line and metering station at the Existing AGS Units. Gas is currently delivered to the Existing AGS Units at a pressure of approximately 250 pounds per square inch gauge. The gas will pass through the existing gas main running along 20th Avenue and then through a new meter to be installed next to the existing gas meters. The pressure of the gas will be raised in a gas compressor located at the FOTF and then supplied to the SiemensCT. If required by final plant design, other ancillary gas equipment such as a gas bypass/reducing station and moisture separators and filters may also be installed.

A new aboveground fuel oil tank will also be constructed at the Site for the storage of ULSD fuel. Currently there is approximately 8 million gallons of No. 6 oil storage at the FOTF in four tanks for the Existing AGS Units. Those tanks will remain in service. Fuel is currently delivered by barge to the tanks from the adjacent A-10 dock and will continue to be delivered from the same dock to the new ULSD fuel tank.

The Existing AGS Units, in addition to natural gas, utilize fuel oil that is delivered by barges. The LCEP Equipment will not change the current fuel oil delivery or storage other than the fuel for the SiemensCT will be ULSD, which will be delivered via barge to the storage tank. The frequency of deliveries will be minimal due to the available storage capacity and because ULSD is the backup fuel supply. It is anticipated approximately 2 to 5 barge deliveries will occur per year.

An auxiliary boiler with a steam capacity of approximately 30,000 pounds per hour (lb/hr) will be installed to provide startup steam to the LCEP Equipment. The auxiliary boiler will operate on natural gas.

2.6.1.4 Exhaust Stack

The SiemensCT and HRSG exhaust gases will pass through the emissions control system before being vented to the atmosphere through a new exhaust stack, approximately 205 feet tall with an inside diameter of 24 feet. This stack will be painted in a color to best blend into the surrounding area to minimize potential visual impacts.

2.6.1.5 Cooling System

The LCEP Equipment will utilize a closed cycle air cooled condenser to cool the steam from the ST back to water for reuse in the HRSG. The air cooled condenser will operate in a closed cycle mode and will not use water for cooling. Fans will circulate air through the dry cooling elements which transfer heat from the steam to the ambient air. A fin fan cooler provides air cooling to the SiemensCT.

2.6.1.6 Emission Control Systems

The exhaust gases from the SiemensCT will pass through the HRSG and emissions control

system consisting of a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system for NOX emissions control and an Oxidation Catalyst for the control of carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. The SiemensCT will also utilize water injection during ULSD

firing to reduce the formation of NOX within the CT. Emissions of SO2 and PM from the SiemensCT will be controlled through the use of natural gas as the primary fuel and ULSD for limited periods as a backup fuel.

2.6.1.7 Utility lnterconnects

Through the use of existing and available utility infrastructure available on the ConEd Complex, environmental impacts associated with the construction of new interconnects will be minimized. The LCEP Equipment will tie into the existing, adjacent ConEd utility switchyard in order to interconnect to the regional electric transmission system. Existing AGS units utility interconnections will be utilized to provide access to the regional natural gas pipeline system, the City municipal water supply system, and the municipal sewerage system. The following sections briefly describe these interconnections.

Electric Interconnect

The LCEP Equipment will generate electricity at 13.8 kilovolts. This voltage level will be raised to 138 kilovolts through a dedicated step-up transformer for delivery to ConEd’s Astoria East substation, located approximately 2,200 feet west of the Site. The connections will be made at one of the two existing AGS Unit 2 and 3 interconnects. Routing of the new interconnection from the LCEP to the interconnect point will most likely be within the existing utility easement or potentially via a new easement. However, given the proximity of the existing utility switchyard and relative ease of routing, the result is minimal land disturbance associated with the interconnection. The Site switchyard will include circuit breakers and

protective relaying to protect the generator and step-up transformer while maintaining electrical grid reliability and stability.

Gas Interconnect

The primary source of fuel for the LCEP Equipment will be natural gas from the existing regional natural gas pipeline system. The delivery of gas to the Site occurs via an existing pipeline interconnect and metering station at the Existing AGS Units. Gas is currently delivered to the Existing AGS Units at a pressure of approximately 250 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). The gas will pass through the existing gas main running along 20th Avenue and then through a new meter to be installed next to the existing gas meters. A new 10” to 12” line will be installed within the existing utility easement from the Existing AGS Units to the Site.

Water Supply Interconnect

Water will be supplied to the Site by the City municipal water supply system that currently services the Existing AGS Units. The Site will require water for both plant service and fire protection. The LCEP Equipment will use a maximum of approximately 98,000 gallons of municipal water per day when firing natural gas and 380,000 gallons of municipal water per day when firing ULSD.

AGC will meet with the City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the City Fire Department (FDNY) to determine the detailed requirements for the LCEP’s water supply. The current design includes a fire protection water storage tank in the event that the redundancy requirements cannot be met with the current water supplies to the Existing AGS Units. Alternatively, AGC could modify the plant’s current connection from the City municipal water supply system by increasing the pipe capacity or adding another city water connection. A detailed assessment of water supply issues is provided in Section 3.2.

Sanitary wastewater will be discharged from the Site via a gravity feed pipeline connection to an existing 4-inch line from the ejector pump vault to the sanitary sewer vault at the Existing AGS Units. The sanitary wastewater line discharges to the Bowery Bay Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) at the end of Steinway Street in Astoria. The design capacity of the WPCP is approximately 120 million gallons per day. It is estimated that the incremental discharge from the site will average 21,000 gallons of wastewater per day, which is insignificant compared to the total throughput of the water treatment facility.

2.6.2 Materials Storage, Handling and Disposal

2.6.2.1 Water Storage

The LCEP Equipment will include a demineralized water storage tank and a fire protection water storage tank (if required). Both tanks will be constructed adjacent to each other on the Site generally as illustrated in Figure 2.0-2. The demineralized water tank is approximately 48 feet in diameter, approximately 30 feet in height, and has a design capacity of over 500,000

gallons. The fire protection water tank is slightly smaller, approximately 32 feet in diameter, approximately 30 feet in height, and has a design capacity of over 300,000 gallons.

2.6.2.2 Chemical Storage and Handling

The LCEP Equipment will require the use of chemicals already in use at the existing AGS

Facility, with the addition of 19% aqueous ammonia (NH3) for the LCEP Equipment SCR emissions control system. Chemicals are already stored in properly designed storage

areas/containers located throughout the existing AGS Facility. NH3 will be stored in a tank of

approximately 40,000 gallons capacity. The handling and storage of NH3 at the Site will comply with the applicable portions of the NYCRR Chemical Bulk Storage Regulations (6 NYCRR Parts 596-599). AGC will prepare a DEP Right to Know Risk Management Plan (RMP)

for the storage of aqueous NH3 at the Site prior to commencing operation of the LCEP Equipment. Any required registrations and/or licenses will be obtained prior to any new chemicals being brought onto the Site.

2.6.2.3 Solid Waste Disposal

Solid wastes will be generated during the construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment. Construction wastes will be removed from the Site as necessary by appropriately licensed contractors. Though a net deficit of fill is anticipated at the conclusion of the LCEP Equipment construction phase, the procedures for off-site disposal of soils encountered during the construction process are described in Section 3.1. During operation, normal trash and maintenance-related solid wastes will be generated, which will represent a small incremental amount to that already generated at the existing AGS Facility. This incremental amount will be managed in accordance with current practices by appropriately licensed contractors. As described in Section 10.0, existing recycling programs will be enhanced to minimize waste.

2.7 Construction Plan and Project Schedule

At this time, the LCEP timetable is for construction to begin in the spring quarter of 2012, with commercial operation commenced by the summer of 2014. The total construction period is estimated to be approximately 24 months. The proposed schedule for the major phases of construction is as follows:

Site Preparation: Months 1 through 4

Foundations: Months 4 through 8

Building Erection: Months 8 through 12

Mechanical Installation: Months 9 through 22

Electrical Installation: Months 9 through 22

Commissioning: Months 22 through 24

The construction workforce is expected to consist of a maximum of approximately 250 to 350 workers at the peak of construction activities. During the entire construction schedule, work will normally occur on weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., with possible work on weekends being required. It is possible that a two-shift schedule will be adopted to assure that the LCEP Equipment is completed by the summer peak electrical demand period in 2014. These second shift activities would generally require significantly fewer workers than during the day shift. There may also be short periods of around-the-clock activity during the commissioning and start-up phase of the Project.

2.8 Construction and Operation Overview

Construction

The construction activities at the LCEP Equipment will include civil work such as grading, excavating and pouring concrete foundations. These activities will require the use of conventional powered construction equipment such as bulldozers and excavators fueled with ULSD. The delivery and installation of structural steel and building siding and mechanical equipment, such as the SiemensCT, HRSG and its ancillary equipment, will utilize cranes, fork lift trucks and other powered material handling equipment. Construction workers will use powered hand tools and welding equipment to install and connect Project equipment. The main vehicular entrance to the ConEd Complex is located at 20th Avenue in Queens, New York. A second access entrance is located at 31st Street. The 31st street access will be utilized for the majority of the over the road deliveries during construction. AGC will utilize the A-10 waterfront facility, which supports fuel oil deliveries to the existing AGS Facility, to receive some components via barge delivery to the extent practical, but the majority of waterborne deliveries will be to the ConEd A-12 dock or the AGS A-0 dock.

Excess soils designated for off-site disposal, if any, will be properly characterized and disposed of by a licensed and insured hauler according to all applicable regulatory guidelines. To the extent practicable, construction materials (concrete, gravel, welding supplies, etc.), will be obtained from local sources.

Construction of the LCEP Equipment is expected to take approximately 24 months. A total of approximately 250 to 300 vehicular trips will be required to deliver the mechanical components to the Site. In addition, a total of approximately 150 to 200 vehicular trips will be required for the delivery of structural materials such as steel, piping, wire and cladding over a 4-month period. Concrete truck traffic is expected to peak between Months 4 and 8 of construction and is likely to average approximately 10 to 20 concrete truck deliveries per day. Total waterborne deliveries are anticipated to range from 30 to 50 during the construction of the LCEP Equipment.

Peak employment is anticipated to occur between Months 9 and 22 of the construction period and will consist of 250 to 350 employees on-site during any one quarter. At peak construction, the LCEP could generate up to 100 vehicular roundtrips per day due to construction personnel. Section 3.7 provides additional detail regarding construction period transportation.

Safeguards that will be taken to protect local citizens from any construction-related hazards are discussed in Section 3.11.

Operation

Like the existing AGS Facility, the LCEP Equipment will be owned and operated by AGC. The LCEP Equipment will be operated, inspected and maintained according to industry standards and in accordance with established AGC procedures. Operation of the LCEP Equipment will result in workday activities much like those that are carried out at the existing AGS Facility. The LCEP Equipment is expected to operate as an intermediate dispatchable unit in accordance with NYISO rules. It is anticipated that the LCEP Equipment will be maintained relatively high in the dispatch queue due to its inherent highly efficient operation. Full-time, permanent facility staff will perform maintenance activities as needed or scheduled, and from time to time may need to utilize powered equipment such as cranes and fork lift trucks to properly perform these activities.

As discussed further in Section 2.9, the LCEP Equipment is expected to have a useful life of approximately 30 years. During its life, AGC will employ sufficient staff to safely and reliably operate and maintain the equipment.

The additional operations traffic is expected to average less than approximately five to ten additional vehicles to the Site per day, most of which would be passenger cars.

Fuel oil for the existing AGS Facility is delivered by barges. Since natural gas will be utilized as the primary fuel with ULSD as a backup fuel, the LCEP Equipment is not anticipated to increase future barge fuel oil deliveries to the AGS Facility significantly. Approximately 2 to 5 additional barges delivering ULSD fuel are anticipated on an annual basis.

2.9 Reviews, Approvals, and Other Compliance Determinations

The LCEP is subject to several federal, state and local regulatory requirements which serve to protect the environment and the public interest. Among these the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), which requires all state and local government agencies to consider potential environmental impacts equally with social and economic factors in determining whether to issue required approvals to projects like the LCEP. Among the required approvals are NYSDEC permits, New York State Public Service Commission (NYSPSC) approvals, and one or more City approvals (NYSDEC, 2008a).

2.9.1 State/City Environmental Review

SEQRA, found at Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, requires that all state and local agencies review and evaluate, and mitigate if necessary, the environmental impacts of discretionary actions before undertaking, funding or approving the action. The regulations that implement the process for reviewing the impacts are found at 6 NYCRR Part 617. The regulations require the designation of a “lead agency” to make determinations regarding the environmental review process and the impacts identified therein (6 NYCRR 617.6(b)(2)). NYSDEC has been designated the lead agency for the review of the Project and is conducting a

“coordinated review” whereby other “involved” and “interested” agencies are given opportunities to participate in the environmental review (6 NYCRR 617.6(b)(3)). See Appendix A for a list of interested and involved agencies.

Under 6 NYCRR 617.7, the lead agency is required to review preliminary information submitted by an applicant about a project to determine the “significance” of any potential environmental impacts associated with the project. If the lead agency finds at least one potential significant adverse environmental impact, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required to be completed in accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.9. As fully discussed in the Project description and throughout the analyses presented in this DEIS, the LCEP is designed to result in a net decrease in actual air emissions. Notwithstanding the belief that no significant adverse environmental impacts are anticipated (in fact there will be an environmental benefit) as a result of the LCEP, AGC has prepared this DEIS in order to fully address potential community concerns, including Environmental Justice issues.

City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) procedures do not apply to this Project, as NYSDEC is lead agency and will proceed under SEQRA. Nonetheless, this DEIS meets all of the City environmental requirements, including the requirement for a mandatory public scoping meeting, held on September 20, 2010. DEP is an interested agency under SEQRA and receives copies of all submittals made to NYSDEC regarding the LCEP.

2.9.2 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The LCEP will require that AGC apply to NYSDEC to modify the existing Title V Permit for AGS’s air emissions and the Facility’s State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit for water discharges as well as address other environmental requirements as noted in Section 2.9.5.

2.9.3 New York City Department of Environmental Protection

Under Title 24 of the City Administrative Code (Section 24-120 et seq.) and Chapter 2 of 15 Rules of the City of New York (RCNY), regarding fuel burning equipment, AGS holds a Certificate of Operation issued by the NYCDEP and renewed every three years. Construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment will require modification of the AGS Facility’s current triennial certificate.

Since the rules set out in 15 RCNY Chapter 2 are design specifications, approval of the modified certificate is ministerial and not discretionary. If NYSDEC approves the Title V Permit modification for the LCEP, thereafter AGC will apply to NYCDEP for a modification of the AGS Facility’s Triennial Certificate of Operation, which application will include a design plan of the LCEP Equipment. The DEP will review and approve the plans after which AGC may proceed with construction. After construction is complete, a modified Certificate of Operation shall be issued by the NYCDEP.

2.9.4 New York State Public Service Commission

Section 68 of the New York State Public Service Law (PSL) requires a merchant power producer to seek approval from the NYSPSC before it begins construction of a new electric generating

plant. Specifically, the applicant for such approval must file a Petition for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the NYSPSC. Therefore, a Section 68 application to the NYSPSC will be submitted for the installation of the LCEP Equipment. That application also will include a request for an order approving financing of the LCEP, pursuant to PSL Section 69, and a request for lightened regulation as an Exempt Wholesale Generator under the federal Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935.

The DEIS will be submitted to the NYSPSC as an involved agency under SEQRA and in support of the Section 68/69 Petition. The analyses in the DEIS demonstrate that the Project is in the public interest based on the installation of the additional power to meet ever increasing electrical demand in the City, coupled with significant and enforceable emission reductions at the SiemensCT and Existing AGS Units, such that the potential emissions of the LCEP Equipment will be significantly less than the actual emissions of the existing AGS Units.

AGC will file its Section 68/69 Petition with the NYSPSC once the DEIS has been determined to be complete by the NYSDEC. The Petition will be subject to public notice and comment. The NYSPSC cannot issue a decision on the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity until 10 days after the Final EIS (FEIS) has been filed with and accepted by NYSDEC.

2.9.5 Anticipated Notifications, Actions, Permits and Approvals

As discussed in Section 2.9.1, SEQR is the environmental review process that is a precondition to state and local agency issuance of approvals for the LCEP. The development and operation of the LCEP Equipment are likely to require or involve the following primary federal, state, and local regulatory agency notifications, actions, permits and approvals:

Title V Permit Modification (6 NYCRR 201-6) (NYSDEC)

Acid Rain Permit (known as Title IV) (6NYCRR 201-6) (NYSDEC)

SPDES Permit Modification (6 NYCRR 750) (NYSDEC)

SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharge from Construction Activity (including SWPPP) (GP-10-01) Notice of Intent (NYSDEC)

CO2 Budget Permit (6 NYCRR 242-3) (NYSDEC)

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) NOX Annual Trading Permit (6 NYCRR 244-3) and CAIR SO2 Trading Permit (6 NYCRR 245-3) (NYSDEC)

Updated Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan (40 CFR 112 and 6 NYCRR 612-614) (NYSDEC)

Bulk Petroleum Storage Tank Permit (FDNY) and Petroleum Bulk Storage Permit (NYSDEC)

New York State Chemical Bulk Storage (NH3 tank) Registration (6 NYCRR Parts 595-599) (NYSDEC)

Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP) Consistency Review (NYSDEC, NYSPSC)

PSL Section 68 Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (NYSPSC)

PSL Section 69 Approval (NYSPSC)

Lightened Regulation Approval (NYSPSC)

Increase water use connection/approval (NYCDEP)

Fire Department Storage Permit (aqueous ammonia <20% concentration) (FDNY)

Modification of Coast Guard Response Plan (United States Coast Guard [USCG])

Notice of Proposed Construction (Federal Aviation Administration [FAA])

2.10 Decommissioning

The LCEP Equipment unit will be designed for a useful operating life of approximately 30 years. During the life of the LCEP Equipment, maintenance and refurbishment of the components will be required. Near the end of its useful life, the primary components of the LCEP Equipment could undergo significant refurbishment to maintain a competitive position in the market and extend the life of the components. Alternatively, since electric generation technology is anticipated to advance over the life of the LCEP Equipment, it is reasonable to expect that new, even more efficient, state-of-the- art equipment could be installed at the Site in lieu of refurbishment. To the extent that the transmission and distribution system in Queens and the City remains similar to that which currently exists, it is likely that the Site will remain a critical location for electric power generation. The Site’s proximity to the existing, adjacent utility switchyard is expected to continue to be required as an electric generation site to maintain system reliability.

Should the future bring substantial changes to the electric transmission and distribution system, it may be that the Site could become less desirable as a generation site. It may be possible that future development of the New York electric grid focuses on new, larger, centrally located generation or more localized distributed generation may fill the need for local capacity. If that were to occur, the LCEP Equipment may not be required and could be decommissioned. The decision to cease operations permanently and decommission the LCEP Equipment will be solely at the discretion of AGC. The main criterion for reaching such a decision will be the failure of the LCEP Equipment to continue to be economically viable.

It is expected that upon a decision to cease operations permanently, the equipment will be offered for sale. The value of this equipment could be for reinstallation at another location or for its intrinsic scrap value. The expectation is that the purchaser would be responsible for dismantling and removal

of the equipment from the Site and that the salvage value would be in excess of the cost to remove. The Site could then be redeveloped for another business or appropriate use consistent with City requirements at the time of decommissioning, and the requirements of the site remediation consent agreement (see Section 3.1.1.1).

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION

3.1 Geology, Soils and Topography

This section describes the existing soils and topography on the Site, and the surficial and subsurface geology of the site and vicinity. The information presented in this section was compiled from available geologic reports and maps as referenced herein. A geotechnical program will be conducted to provide additional site-specific information, which will be used to design the Project so it will be compatible with Site conditions.

In accordance with the Scoping Document, this section will describe construction-related excavation and soil disturbance activities, and procedures to assess potential soil contamination and undertake remedial actions in the event soil contamination is encountered during construction.

3.1.1 Existing Conditions

3.1.1.1 Topography and Soils

The Site is located near the northwestern tip of Long Island in Queens County, in a topographically level area bordered to the southeast by Luyster Creek, and to the west and north by the East River. The East River provides a tidal connection between Long Island Sound and Upper New York Bay. The Site is characterized by relatively level topography at approximately 16 feet above sea level.

The Site is located within the ConEd Complex, which has been developed and utilized in support of energy generation for nearly a century, and consequently, native soils are highly disturbed. As shown on the aerial photograph in Figure 3.1-1, the 10.1-acre site is currently covered by pavement, three aboveground bulk fuel storage tanks, the containment berm of a fourth tank that has been removed, and other utility-related infrastructure. The City Reconnaissance Soil Survey Map classifies surface cover at the site as “pavement and buildings, wet substratum, and LaGuardia-Ebbets Complex soils at 0 to 8% slopes” (New York City Soil and Water Conservation District, map updated February 23, 2009), as shown in Figure 3.1-2.

There have been a number of historic oil releases at the FOTF which resulted in impacted soils at various locations. A September 11, 2000 Order on Consent (NYSDEC File No. C02- 19990430-28) replaced four prior consent orders that were in effect between the NYSDEC and the prior operator, ConEd. AGC is responsible for complying with the terms of the 2000 Order on Consent.

A FOTF Investigation Work Plan consistent with previously approved investigation/ remediation plans has been submitted to NYSDEC (ARCADIS, October 6, 2010) detailing previous and planned investigations intended to address open spills. In most instances, the fuel oil-related spills were contained and the affected areas were either cleaned or the soils were excavated and disposed of. In some cases, spills were fully contained within concrete secondary containment areas, which appear to have limited the potential impacts to the

environment. The FOTF Investigation Work Plan includes full characterization of soil and groundwater contamination, through additional borings and groundwater monitoring well installations, soil and groundwater sampling, and laboratory analysis, to evaluate, in coordination with NYSDEC, whether closure of the spills is warranted.

The need for additional site-specific soil characterization and evaluation will be completed during a geotechnical investigation program, to be conducted prior to final Project engineering. The Project will be designed to be compatible with the on-site geologic conditions.

3.1.1.2 Surficial Geology

Long Island marks the southern extent of the last glacial advance known as the Wisconsin glaciation around 21,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene. As the glacial ice fronts stalled, the mix of sediments carried by the ice were deposited in east-west oriented ridges, known as moraines, which formed parallel to the ice fronts. The north side of Long Island contains the terminal moraine of the Pleistocene glaciers.

Regional surficial geology above bedrock in the Borough of Queens generally consists of a wedge of unconsolidated sediments overlying a southwesterly sloping bedrock surface. The unconsolidated clay, silts, sand and gravel are comprised of Wisconsin-age dense morainal glacial till and post-glacial sediments, deposited over pre-Wisconsin Pleistocene and Upper Cretaceous sediments.

A review of a USCG nautical chart published in 1910 indicates that the Site is located on or near what was then Berrian’s Island in the East River (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2010). This island likely was composed of glacially-derived sediments; the tidal flats around the island were subsequently filled to connect the island to the mainland.

The New York State Geographic Information System (NYSGIS) Clearinghouse maps glacial till as the dominant surficial sediment at the site and vicinity (see Figure 3.1-3). Soil borings advanced at the FOTF site in 2005 encountered brown to red fine to coarse sand with gravel and bricks (indicating fill material), overlying fine to coarse sand with gravel (Arcadis, July 30, 2010 draft).

3.1.1.3 Geologic Setting and Bedrock Geology

The Site is located within the Atlantic Coastal Plan physiographic province (Rogers et al, 1990). Bedrock beneath the site is mapped as the Middle Proterozoic (Precambrian age)- Fordham Gneiss, a pink to salmon-red to gray metamorphic gneiss (Baskerville, 1992). As shown on the map in Figure 3.1-4, the Site is located approximately 500 feet west of the mapped surficial location of Cameron’s Line, an ancient major northeast-striking fault that has been interpreted as an easterly dipping thrust fault, moving younger stratigraphic units westerly over older units. The Hartland Formation, a Middle Ordovician-age schist, is mapped as the top of bedrock just east of Cameron’s Line near the Site. Because the fault is dipping

easterly and away from the Site, the main fault should not be encountered during Project construction, based upon its mapped location.

The fault, which extends into western Connecticut, is one of many northeast-striking faults in the area that are thought to have formed in the early compressional stages of Taconic deformation in the Middle Ordovician approximately 460 to 480 million years ago (Isachsen et al, 2000). This tectonic episode created the now largely eroded Taconic Mountains in eastern New York, well north of the Site. The fault system may have been re-activated in the Triassic during the early extensional rifting that created the Atlantic Ocean. Although minor earthquakes have occurred in the New York metropolitan area as recently as 2001, there is no direct evidence that any movement has occurred on any of these observed faults since the Mesozoic, hundreds of millions of years ago (Baskerville, 1992).

In the southern portion of the ConEd Complex, the Upper Glacial aquifer consists of glacial till comprised of ground moraine. The northern portion of the ConEd Complex consists of fill materials overlying shore and salt marsh deposits. The unconsolidated sediments and glacial till aquifer underlying the ConEd Complex are relatively thin, approximately 35 to 45 feet thick, and rest directly on the bedrock surface.

Previous subsurface investigation data, ConEd Complex-wide well gauging data, and ongoing Area 3 IRM monitoring data indicate that groundwater beneath the FOTF is generally encountered at depths between 6 to 15 ft bls. Groundwater beneath the FOTF flows north toward the East River (Arcadis 2010).

Site-specific geologic characteristics will be evaluated during a geotechnical investigation program, to be conducted prior to final Project engineering. At that time, the potential for Project foundations penetrating into bedrock will be determined. The Project will be designed to be compatible with on-site geologic conditions.

3.1.1.4 Unusual Landforms or Geologic Formations

No National Natural Landmarks have been identified in Queens County (National Park Service, 2010). No sites of geologic interest were identified on or in the vicinity of the Site on the New York Geologic Highway Map (Rogers et al, 1990). There are no unusual landforms or unique geologic formations on or in the immediate vicinity of the Site.

3.1.2 Potential Impacts

The Site has been fully disturbed due to its use as a fuel oil storage facility. Potential geology- related impacts during construction and operation of the Project are described below. Adherence to applicable design and construction standards, plans detailing best management practices, and environmental compliance conditions will minimize the likelihood of adverse impacts to soils and geology. Mitigation measures are proposed in Section 3.1.3.

3.1.2.1 Short-term Impacts during Construction and Decommissioning

Techniques associated with the soil disturbance required for Project construction are described in the sections below. Potential impacts that could affect soils and geology during construction include erosion and sedimentation of disturbed soils into nearby water bodies, excavation of contaminated soils, generation of dust, and spills or releases of oil and hazardous materials.

Adherence to applicable design and construction standards and best management practices, as well as site erosion control, stormwater management and spill response plans, will minimize the likelihood of adverse impacts to soils and geology. Mitigation measures are proposed in Section 3.1.3, and will be detailed in the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and the SPCC Plan that will be prepared prior to the start of construction. Any contaminated or potentially contaminated soils will be handled in accordance with a Soils Management Plan that will also be prepared prior to the start of construction.

Cut and Fill Volumes

Specific volumes have not been determined. Soils will be excavated to the extent necessary. Excavated material will be utilized on Site based on the quality of the material. Contaminated soils within the proposed footprint will be removed concurrent with construction, will be screened and, if warranted, disposed of according to all applicable laws and best management practices.

Excavation Techniques

Because the soil overburden consists mainly of sandy materials, gravels and fill, conventional mechanical excavation methods should be sufficient.

Foundations

Foundation design has not been finalized, but may include pile type foundations advanced to competent bedrock at depths sufficient to provide adequate support and long-term stability. The SiemensCT and ST foundations will be designed in accordance with the requirements for rotating machinery. Large power transformers will be mounted on concrete bases, each surrounded by a containment basin sized to equal at least 125 percent of the entire volume of oil required for each transformer (including allowance for fire protection water flows). Shallow foundations supported by spread footings may also be used to support other equipment such as tanks.

Soil Erosion and Sedimentation

Soils disturbed during heavy construction can erode and be transported off-site by wind, construction vehicles, or rain. The potential for erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through adherence to a Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, as discussed in Section 3.1.3.1

Management of Oil and Hazardous Materials

Operation of construction equipment can potentially result in the accidental release of oil or hazardous materials to the land surface and other environmental resources. Proposed mitigation measures to minimize the potential for releases of oil and hazardous materials are presented in Section 3.1.3.2.

Potential Soil Contamination

Soil contamination likely will be encountered, given the known historical releases at the Site. A FOTF Investigation Work Plan, as described in Section 3.1.1.1, has been prepared to further characterize the extent of any contamination that may be encountered during construction, and the remedial actions that will be taken.

3.1.2.2 Long-term Impacts During Operations and Maintenance

Potential geology-related impacts during operations include spills to soils, erosion and sedimentation of soils disturbed during maintenance activities, and the potential for earthquakes to affect the Project.

Management of Oil and Hazardous Materials

Accidental release of oil or hazardous materials used during LCEP Equipment operation could affect the land surface and other environmental resources. These materials could include

such materials as petroleum products, transformer oil, and aqueous NH3. Proposed mitigation measures are addressed in Section 3.1.3.2.

Soil Erosion and Sediment Control

Soils disturbed due to maintenance activities during LCEP Equipment operation can erode and cause sedimentation in nearby water bodies. Proposed mitigation measures are addressed in Section 3.1.3.1.

Procedures to Assess and Remediate Potential Soil Contamination

Information developed under a FOTF Investigation Work Plan will provide a basis for assessing the magnitude and extent of impacts to soil and groundwater. Additional data may be developed during the geotechnical boring required for foundation design. The Soil Management Plan will address segregation, stockpiling/storage, site reuse and offsite disposition of excavated material.

Seismic Considerations

As discussed in Section 3.1.1.3, the fault mapped just east of the Site has been inactive for hundreds of millions of years (Baskerville, 1992) and should not affect operation of the LCEP Equipment. Eastern New York State regularly experiences low levels of earthquake activity. The New York Building Code and the Seismic Standards found in the applicable City Seismic

Code were enacted in 1995, to address potential impact to structures due to seismic activity, as further discussed in Section 3.1.3.4.

3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation

Site-specific geologic characteristics will be evaluated during a geotechnical investigation program, to be conducted prior to final Project engineering. The LCEP Equipment will be designed to be compatible with on-site geologic conditions.

To avoid, minimize and/or mitigate Project impacts to soil and geology, the following plans will be prepared. Copies of all plans will be provided to the general contractor and all subcontractors for their review and use. Construction activities will be overseen by an AGC representative who will have the authority to stop work and authorize appropriate corrective action as necessary.

3.1.3.1 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan

Mitigation measures in the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan will include:

Prior to the start of work, erosion control measures will be placed around the perimeter of the Site to prevent off-site erosion into adjacent nearby water bodies. These controls will be regularly inspected, maintained, and modified, as needed, to avoid erosion and siltation until construction is completed and soils are stabilized.

Erosion control measures will include staked hay bales, siltation fencing, temporary siltation basins, temporary slope breakers, temporary earthen berms, sand bags, and other appropriate materials, as needed.

Excavated soils will be reused on-site as long as they are determined to be suitable. Should any excavated soils not be suitable for on-site reuse, the soils will be properly characterized and removed from the Site by a licensed and insured hauler.

The contractor will take measures to reduce dust generation during construction, such as covering stockpiles and watering excavated soils if needed.

Personnel familiar with local horticultural and turf establishment procedures will oversee restoration and revegetation following construction.

As discussed in Section 3.2, a detailed Stormwater Management Plan will be developed prior to the start of construction, which will further specify measures to minimize potential erosion and siltation. In addition, prior to construction, AGC will obtain coverage under NYSDEC’s Stormwater General Permit for Construction Activities, which will ensure that siltation and sedimentation impacts will be minimized.

3.1.3.2 Management of Oil and Hazardous Materials

The existing SPCC Plan for the AGS Facility will be modified to incorporate the new facilities associated with the LCEP Equipment. The Plan details procedures for safe storage, and

procedures to contain and remediate spills or releases, of oil and hazardous materials during operation, as described in Section 3.1.3.2. The SPCC Plan will include mitigation measures such as:

Any oil and hazardous materials used at the Site will be securely stored, properly labeled, handled, used and disposed of, so that the potential for accidental spill or release is minimized;

Equipment will be fueled and maintained (including washing) in specified areas, well away from surface water bodies.

Any releases of oil or hazardous materials will be contained, controlled and remediated immediately upon detection, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.

Waste will be disposed of properly, and in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.

In summary, adherence to the plans identified by AGC and its contractors will serve to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to soil and geology at the Site.

3.1.3.3 Procedures to Assess Potential Contamination and Undertake Remedial Actions

Procedures to assess potential soil contamination and undertake remedial actions in the event soil contamination is encountered during construction will be developed prior to the start of construction. The procedures will also include a Health and Safety Plan, to monitor and protect construction personnel. Generally excavated materials will be handled in accordance with the Soils Management Plan to be developed for the Site prior to LCEP construction. The plan will consist of the following measures:

Any impacted soils encountered during facility maintenance/or construction activities will be placed on plastic sheeting adjacent to the work area, where applicable, and covered with plastic sheeting as they are removed from the subsurface. During this process, the soil will be screened by visual observation and use of an organic vapor meter (OVM) equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID). Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S) procedures for the AGS will be followed at all times during these activities. All excavated soils will be satisfactorily protected at all times from precipitation and from becoming airborne by securing covers over the soil piles. The soil will be managed in one of the three following manners.

1. No Obvious Visual/Odor Observations and/or FID Detections

a. Maintain a log documenting all soil screening observations including soil lithology, visual and odor observations (or lack thereof), and the dimensions of the trench/excavation (width, length, and depth).

b. If soil impacts are not suspected based on soil screening observations, then the soils may be re-used in the trench/excavation without analytical testing.

c. Impacted soils will be staged separately from clean soils whenever feasible so that a portion of the excavated soils can be placed back in the trench/excavation.

d. If soil impacts are evident based on odor and soil screening observations, then the soil will be disposed off-site. Composite samples will be collected from the staged impacted soils. The samples will be submitted to a New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) certified laboratory and analyzed for constituents outlined in the Soils Management Plan. The soil will be disposed off-site at a permitted facility based on the results.

e. If suspected soil impacts are based solely on visual observations and considered for placement back in the trench/excavation, then these soils should be staged separately from soils exhibiting petroleum odors. Composite samples can be collected and analyzed for constituents outlined in the Soils Management Plan. A determination of whether the soils can be placed back in the trench/excavation will be made by comparing the analytical results to NYSDEC site-specific cleanup criteria.

2. Obvious Contamination

a. A log documenting all soil screening observations such as noticeable odors, soil lithology, visual observations (e.g., staining), and the dimensions of the trench/excavation (width, length, and depth) will be maintained. These observations will be discussed in a “Letter of Findings” report prepared for NYSDEC, as necessary.

b. A determination will be made of immediate remedial measures (e.g., absorbent pads, vacuum truck, limited additional soil excavation) that may be implemented to stabilize the situation. Stained soil and LNAPL will be removed to the extent feasible within the approximate limits of the trench/excavation.

c. Soils that appear to exhibit gross contamination via this screening procedure will be containerized in New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)-approved 55-gallon drums or Part 364 certified/licensed roll-offs, depending on the soil volume, while the remaining soils will be placed on plastic sheeting, where applicable.

d. If portions of the excavated soil do not exhibit impacts based on soil screening observations, then the soils may be re-used in the trench/excavation without analytical testing. In addition, procedures outlined for visually impacted soils under “No Obvious Visual/Odor Observations and/or FID Detections” can be implemented when feasible.

e. Composite samples will be collected from the staged impacted soils. The samples will be submitted to a New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) certified

laboratory and analyzed for constituents outlined in the Soils Management Plan. The soil will be disposed off-site at a permitted facility based on the results.

3. Discovery of Spill

Appropriate site personnel will be contacted to report the discovery of a petroleum spill because the discovery may need to be reported to NYSDEC (Telephone Hotline – (800)- 457-7362) within two hours (6 NYCRR Part 613.8 – Reporting of Spills and Discharges). Once the situation is stabilized, the facility construction activities can proceed and soil handling, management, and sampling will proceed as described in the Obvious Contamination section above.

3.1.3.4 Seismic Considerations

The existing Site conditions, including geology, topography, regional seismic conditions along with local, state and federal building codes and good engineering practices are the basis for Project engineering and design.

To reduce the potential risk of damage due to earthquakes, the LCEP Equipment will be designed in accordance with the applicable portions of the New York Building Code and the Seismic Standards found in the City Seismic Code enacted in 1995. The Code establishes standards and guidance that are designed to prevent life threatening collapses of buildings and components due to earthquakes. In addition, applicable Uniform Building Codes and American National Standards Institute/American Society of Civil Engineers standards will be followed for the design and construction of the Project.

3.1.4 References

ARCADIS, Fuel Oil Tank Farm Investigation Work Plan. October 6, 2010.

Baskerville, Charles A. 1992. Bedrock and Engineering Geologic Maps of Bronx County and Parts of New York and Queens Counties New York. United States Geologic Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series. Map I-2003 (two Sheets). Reston, Virginia.

National Park Service. 2010 Registry of National Natural Landmarks. Accessed on July 27, 2010. http://www.nature.nps.gov/nnl/pdf/RevisedRegistryJune2009.pdf

New York City Seismic Code, Local Law 17/95, 1995.

NOAA. 2010. Office of Coast Survey Historical Map & Chart Project. 1910 Nautical Chart of New York. Accessed July 16 and 26, 2010. http://historicalcharts.noaa.gov/tiled_jpgs_done/zoomifyURLDrivenWebPage.htm?zoomif yImagePath=CP3115C.

Rogers, William B.; Isachsen, Yngvar W.; Mock, Timothy D.; Nyahay, Richard E. 1990. New York State Geological Highway Map. Educational Leaflet 33. The University of the State of New York, New York Geological Survey, and the New York State Museum. Albany, New York.

3.2 Water Resources

This section presents information on the existing conditions, potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures to water resources due to the construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment.

3.2.1 Existing Conditions

3.2.1.1 Surface Waters

There are no surface water bodies located on the Site. The upper East River defines the northern property boundary of the ConEd Complex and is approximately 275 feet from the northwest corner of the Site. According to NYSDEC, the segment of the East River in the vicinity of the Site is impacted by a variety of pollutants/sources, including nutrient (nitrogen) loadings from treated municipal sewage, untreated sewage from combined sewer overflow, toxic/contaminated sediments, pathogens, low dissolved oxygen, industrial activity, stormwater and urban runoff (NYSDEC, 2002). As a result, NYSDEC has precluded fish consumption from these waters, classified aquatic life and recreational uses as impacted, and classified the aesthetics along the river as stressed.

3.2.1.2 New York City Coastal Zone

The Site is located within the coastal zone, according to the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP). Coastal zone boundaries were originally mapped and adopted in 1982, and these boundaries define the geographic scope of the WRP (DCP, 2002). The requirements of the WRP are discussed in Section 3.14. The Site is not classified as either a Special Natural Waterfront Area or a Significant Maritime and Industrial Area.

3.2.1.3 Flood Area Designation

The Site occupies two different flood zone areas, according to Flood Insurance Map, Panel 92 of 457, Map Number 3604970092F, September 5, 2007. Approximately half of the Site is located in discontinuous Zone AE areas. Figure 3.2-1 shows the flood zones in the vicinity of the Site. Zone AE is defined as those areas subject to inundation by the 1%-annual-chance flood event. The base flood elevation for Zone AE areas at the Site is defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as 12 feet above the North American Vertical Datum 1988 elevation of 0.0 feet. Zone AE areas are indicated on Figure 3.2-1 as light blue areas.

The remaining portions of the Site are designated as Zone X. This category of flood zone is a catch-all designation that can include the following: areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood; and areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance flood. Zone X areas that correspond to areas outside the 0.2% annual chance flood are designated as white areas on Figure 3.2- 1, while all other Zone X areas are represented by orange areas.

In order to mitigate potential flood damage to property in this area, critical LCEP Equipment components proposed for this area may be elevated to an approximate height at least three feet above grade. The configuration of the Site plan, relative to FEMA flood zones are provided in figure 3.2-1. This configuration will help protect the equipment from flood events.

3.2.1.4 Wetlands

As described in Section 3.2.1.1, the East River borders the northern side of the ConEd Complex and is approximately 275 feet from the Site (see Figure 3.2-2). According to the NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Map 592-514 (1974), the East River is designated as a tidal wetland—littoral zone in the vicinity of the Site. A small tidal wetland, designated as formerly connected, is shown on the tidal wetland map approximately 150 feet to the east of the Site. Recent aerial photography of the ConEd Complex shows no indication of a tidal wetland in the area mapped by NYSDEC, which suggests that the wetland has been subsequently filled.

NYSDEC classifies tidal wetland Adjacent Areas as any area within 150 feet of a tidal wetland in New York City or to an elevation of 10 feet (see 6 NYCRR 664.1(b)(1)). The USGS topographic map of the area in the vicinity of the Site, provided as a base map in Figure 2.0- 1, indicates that the elevation of the Site is generally approximately 16 feet above sea level. The eastern boundary of the Site is directly adjacent to the edge of the 150 foot buffer around the formerly connected wetland to the east of the Site.

According to the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper, no state-regulated freshwater wetlands are located within the Site or the vicinity (NYSDEC, 2010).

3.2.1.5 Groundwater

A groundwater study of the ConEd Complex was conducted by ENSR International in 2002. The results of this investigation indicate that the groundwater elevation ranges from 9 feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988 along the southern boundary of the Site to 3 feet along the northwestern boundary. The groundwater elevation contours provided by ENSR indicate that groundwater flows toward the East River in a generally northerly direction.

According to the U.S. EPA, the Long Island Aquifer System underlies Queens County, although drinking water for the county is not supplied by groundwater (U.S. EPA, 2010). In the Queens County region of the aquifer system, two aquifers are present: the Upper Glacial Aquifer and the Magothy Aquifer. These aquifers formed due to the presence of thick surficial sand and gravel deposits overlying bedrock. The Upper Glacial Aquifer is closest to the surface in Queens and varies in thickness from zero feet in some areas of northwestern Queens, where bedrock outcrops, to as much as 300 feet in the terminal moraine and near the buried valley (see Section 3.1). The Magothy Aquifer is located below the Upper Glacial Aquifer and varies in thickness from zero feet at its limits to more than 500 feet in southeast Queens.

3.2.1.6 Water Supply and Wastewater Management

The existing AGS Facility currently obtains water from the City municipal water supply system. The City’s municipal water is obtained from the Catskill/Delaware System located in Delaware, Greene, Schoharie, Sullivan, and Ulster counties, west of the Hudson River (DEP, 2010). The City surface reservoir system provides approximately 1.0 billion gallons of safe drinking water daily to over 8 million residents of the City (DEP, 2010). Municipal water demand is expected to remain similar to current operations and therefore is not expected to adversely impact the municipal water supply. The existing approved water supply interconnection between the Existing AGS Units and the FOTF is adequate for the LCEP equipment.

Sanitary wastewater will be discharged from the Site via a gravity feed pipeline connection to an existing sanitary wastewater line which discharges to the Bowery Bay WPCP at the end of Steinway Street, Astoria, New York. The design capacity of the WPCP is approximately 120 million gallons per day, which serves approximately 758,000 people.

3.2.2 Potential Impacts

No adverse impacts to surface waters, wetlands, or groundwater are anticipated due to the construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment. The LCEP Equipment will use dry cooling, and therefore no water withdrawals from the East River are anticipated from the Project. In fact, the reduction in operation of the Existing AGS Units as part of the LCEP will result in a decrease in cooling water use by the Existing AGS Units, and will be a benefit from the Project. Adherence to applicable design and construction standards, as well as revisions, as necessary, to existing site erosion control, stormwater management and spill response plans will minimize the likelihood of adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater. Mitigation measures are proposed in Section 3.2.3, and will be detailed in the updated plans prior to construction.

3.2.2.1 Potential Construction Impacts

The operation of construction equipment can potentially result in the accidental release of oil or hazardous materials to surface water, groundwater, and other adjacent environmental resources. In addition, improper handling and storage of Site materials and inadequate stabilization of Site soils has the potential to adversely impact area water resources.

Portable sanitary facilities will be installed on the Site for the construction workers during the construction of the Project. These facilities will be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Buildings and the City Administrative Code, and will be screened from residential areas and the property lines. These portable units will be emptied on a regular basis by a contractor who will dispose the sanitary waste at a licensed facility.

3.2.2.2 Potential Operational Impacts on Water Supply and Wastewater Discharge

Water will be supplied to the Site by the City municipal water supply system that services the existing AGS Facility. The Site will require water for both plant service and fire protection.

The LCEP Equipment will use a maximum of approximately 98,000 gallons of municipal water per day when firing natural gas and 380,000 gallons of municipal water per day when firing ULSD.

Sanitary wastewater from the additional employees associated with the Site will be discharged to the municipal sanitary sewer system. The Site will discharge process water in the form of boiler blowdown, RO reject water, and equipment/floor drains, which will add an average additional volume of approximately 21,000 gallons per day of wastewater to the municipal system. Stormwater runoff will be directed to the existing stormwater outfall 002 under the current SPDES permit. Water usage for the LCEP Equipment has been minimized during the plant design process. The SiemensCT will be cooled using dry cooling technology. This technology eliminates the need for water intake and therefore provides numerous environmental benefits, including zero impingement or entrainment of aquatic species. Furthermore, the Site will make use of collected rainfall as a resource conservation measure (see Section 10.0).

3.2.2.3 Potential Impacts to Groundwater

Potential impacts to groundwater due to construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment include the potential accidental release of oil or hazardous materials from mobile and stationary equipment.

3.2.2.4 Potential Impacts to Surface Waters and Wetlands

Potential impacts to surface waters due to construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment include soil erosion, siltation and sedimentation in the East River, the potential accidental release of oil or hazardous materials by heavy equipment, and stormwater runoff.

3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation

Many plans required to mitigate potential water impacts are already in place for the existing AGS Facility, and these plans will be reviewed and modified as necessary to include specific mitigation measures for the LCEP Equipment, to the extent that there are unique conditions that warrant additional provisions. The Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan and the SPCC Plan will be developed or modified prior to the start of construction. Adherence to these plans by AGC and its contractors will avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential LCEP Equipment impacts to surface water and groundwater at and adjacent to the Site.

To assure compliance with proposed mitigation measures during construction, AGC will provide copies of, and require the construction contractor to comply with, all site-specific plans detailing construction methodologies and required resource protection measures. In addition, AGC’s representatives will oversee construction activities to ensure that the contractors avoid, minimize and/or mitigate any potential LCEP Equipment impacts to surface water and groundwater. These representatives will have the authority to stop work and authorize appropriate corrective action in the event that conditions are found that would alter the design basis of the LCEP Equipment.

3.2.3.1 Soil Erosion and Siltation

Mitigation measures include:

Prior to the start of work, erosion control measures will be placed around the perimeter of the Site to prevent erosion into the water body adjacent to the Site. These controls will be regularly inspected, maintained, and modified, as needed, to avoid erosion and siltation until construction is completed and soils are stabilized.

Erosion control measures will include staked hay bales, siltation fencing, temporary siltation basins, temporary slope breakers, temporary earthen berms, sand bags, and other appropriate materials.

Existing surface water drainage and subsurface drainage features will not be blocked during road construction or stockpiling of topsoil (if any topsoil suitable for recovery is found). Any damage to surface and subsurface drainage features will be repaired or replaced.

Personnel familiar with local horticultural and turf establishment procedures will oversee restoration and revegetation following construction.

More detailed information on mitigation measures to be employed to avoid or minimize potential erosion and siltation will be included in the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan and Storm Water Management Plan to be developed prior to construction. In addition, prior to construction, AGC will obtain coverage under NYSDEC’s Stormwater General Permit for Construction Activities, which will ensure that siltation and sedimentation impacts will be minimized

3.2.3.2 Management of Oil and Hazardous Materials

The existing AGS Facility operates in accordance with an approved SPCC Plan. This plan will be modified to account for the construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment. Although construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment will not require significant use of oil or hazardous materials, the use of heavy equipment could lead to accidental spills or releases of oil or hazardous materials. The risk of releases will be minimized through adherence to the SPCC Plan. Specific mitigation measures will be included in the SPCC Plan, such as:

Equipment will be fueled and maintained (including washing) in specified areas, well away from surface water bodies.

Any releases of oil or hazardous materials will be remediated immediately upon detection, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.

Wastes will be disposed of properly, and in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.

3.3 Biological, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology

This section presents information on existing biological, terrestrial and aquatic resources, potential impacts to those resources, and proposed mitigation measures to limit potential impacts during construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment. The biological, terrestrial and aquatic resources within and in the vicinity of the Site, including vegetation, wildlife, fish and listed rare species are identified in this section. The following information was compiled from existing published information, a literature review, a desktop GIS review and correspondence with regulatory agencies.

3.3.1 Existing Conditions

The LCEP Equipment is located on a 10.1-acre parcel of the existing FOTF, which occupies 12.5 acres. Because the Site is part of the highly industrialized former ConEd Complex, there is minimal habitat for vegetation, fish and wildlife. Existing vegetation, fish and wildlife that have the potential to occur at or near the Site are described in the following sections.

3.3.1.1 Vegetation and Rare Plant Species

The Site is heavily industrialized with the infrastructure associated with the FOTF, including associated industrial equipment and roadways. Based on a review of orthophotography of the Site, most of the area is covered with impervious surfaces, with limited areas of grassy vegetation. A narrow buffer of trees and shrubs occurs along portions of the shoreline to the north of the Site. The trees and shrubs present are expected to be pioneer species that are typically found on disturbed sites. The New York Natural Heritage Program does not have records of any rare plant or animal species at the Site or at the ConEd Complex.

3.3.1.2 Fish and Wildlife

Information on fish and wildlife that potentially occur at or near the Site was compiled from the NOAA database, the New York State Breeding Bird Atlas, and the Great Backyard Bird Count database. The Site provides limited wildlife habitat, as it is heavily developed for industrial use. A variety of fish species potentially utilize the waters of the East River to the north of the Site.

Fish

The East River is a brackish tidal strait that connects Upper New York Bay to the Long Island Sound. The East River, Upper New York Bay, Lower Hudson River, and western Long Island Sound provide habitat for estuarine and marine fish species.

Several resident estuarine fish species that serve as prey for larger fish species likely utilize the waters of the East River and shallow water habitats located further upstream of the Site. These common species include Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia), mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), striped killifish (Fundulus majalis), sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), and four-spined stickleback (Apeltes quadracus) (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service [USFWS], 1997).

Other estuarine species likely migrate in and out of the East River near the Site on a seasonal basis to access upstream spawning habitats. These species include winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus), tautog (Tautoga onitis), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), mullet (Mugil ssp.), sandlance (Ammodytes americanus), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) (USFWS, 1997).

The NOAA Guide to Essential Fish Habitat database (NOAA, 2010) was reviewed to determine fish species that have at least one life stage present within the East River near the Site. The species presented in Table 3.3-1 below were obtained for the 10-minute square grid that includes the waters adjacent the Site.

Table 3.3-1: Summary of Fish Species with At Least One Life Stage Likely Inhabiting Waters in the Vicinity of the Site Common name Scientific Name Pollock Pollachius virens Red hake Urophycis chuss Redfish Sebastes fasciatus Winter flounder Pleuronectes americanus Windowpane flounder Scopthalmus aquosus Atlantic sea herring Clupea harengus Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix Long finned squid Loligo pealei Short finned squid Illex illecebrosus Atlantic butterfish Peprilus triacanthus Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus Summer flounder Paralicthys dentatus Surf clam Spisula solidissima Ocean quahog Artica islandica Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias King mackerel Scomberomorus cavalla Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus Cobia Rachycentron canadum Sand tiger shark Odontaspis taurus Dusky shark Charcharinus obscurus Sandbar shark Charcharinus plumbeus Scup Stenotomus chrysops Black sea bass Centropristus striata Source: NOAA Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Designations in the Northeastern United States. Accessed online 2010.

Birds

Because it is already heavily developed, it is unlikely that the Site provides any significant avian habitat. A large portion of the Site is covered with impervious surfaces. Based on a review of orthophotography, the Site also includes some isolated grassy patches, and small areas of trees and shrubs that may provide some limited avian habitat.

Typical bird species that may be present within the surrounding areas of the East River shoreline and islands include a variety of waterfowl, shorebirds and neotropical migrants. Some of these species could potentially pass over or near the Site.

North and South Brother Islands, located approximately 0.25 miles to the north of Site, are the most significant bird habitat in the vicinity of the Site. These islands provide habitat for cormorants and long-legged waders. North and South Brother Islands are the site of the largest black-crowned night-heron colony in New York State, with 524 nesting pairs in 1995 (USFWS, 1997). The islands also provide habitat for large numbers of snowy egret and great egret, with lesser numbers of cattle egret and glossy ibis. (USFWS, 1997)

Records of bird sightings and breeding records were gathered from NYSDEC records and the Great American Backyard Bird Count. The bird species listed in Table 3.3-2 were compiled from the NYSDEC Breeding Bird Atlas online database. Results from the Breeding Bird Atlas are based on survey block #5851B, which includes the Site and the area to the north of the Site.

Table 3.3-2: Bird Species Breeding in Survey Block #5851B Common Name Scientific Name American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos American Robin Turdus migratorius Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Canada Goose Branta canadensis Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus Great Egret Ardea alba Herring Gull Larus argentatus House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus House Sparrow Passer domesticus Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Mute Swan Cygnus olor Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos

Common Name Scientific Name Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Rock Pigeon Columba livia Snowy Egret Egretta thula Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Nyctanassa violacea Source: NYSDEC, 2000. New York State Breeding Bird Atlas.

The bird species listed in Table 3.3-3 were compiled from Great Backyard Bird Count online database (www.birdsource.org). The list includes the number of each species of bird that were sighted in New York City between February 12 and February 15, 2010.

Table 3.3-3: Bird Species Sighted in New York, New York, 2010 Great Backyard Bird Count Common Name Number of Birds American Black Duck 7 American Coot 1 American Crow 36 American Goldfinch 25 American Robin 18 American Wigeon 2 Belted Kingfisher 2 Black-capped Chickadee 14 Blue Jay 49 Brant 109 Brown Thrasher 1 Bufflehead 48 Canada Goose 139 Common Grackle 22 Cooper's Hawk 3 Dark-eyed Junco 87 Double-crested Cormorant 3 Downy Woodpecker 17 European Starling 211 Fox Sparrow 1 Gadwall 49 Great Black-backed Gull 44 Greater Yellowlegs 2 Hairy Woodpecker 4 Hermit Thrush 2 Herring Gull 280 Hooded Merganser 1 House Finch 27 House Sparrow 471 Iceland Gull 2

Common Name Number of Birds Mallard 177 Mourning Dove 65 Mute Swan 2 Northern Cardinal 54 Northern Mockingbird 11 Northern Shoveler 85 Peregrine Falcon 1 Red-bellied Woodpecker 14 Red-breasted Merganser 9 Red-breasted Nuthatch 2 Red-tailed Hawk 7 Ring-billed Gull 535 Rock Pigeon 794 Ruddy Duck 101 Song Sparrow 15 Tufted Titmouse 10 White-breasted Nuthatch 7 White-throated Sparrow 229 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker 2 Total 3,797 Source: BirdSource, www.birdsource.org 2010. The Great Backyard Bird Count data was conducted from February 12 through February 15, 2010. Sightings above are for New York City.

Mammals

The Site provides very limited habitat for mammals as the Site is heavily developed with impervious surfaces and existing industrial facilities. The open grassy areas and scattered trees and shrubs may provide habitat for some mammalian species. Some relatively common species tolerant of urban conditions include the raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), black rat (Rattus rattus) and opossum (Didelphis virginiana), which may be found at or near the Site.

3.3.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species

There are no records of any State-listed rare species at the Site, according to correspondence received from New York Natural Heritage Program (Appendix B). The USFWS website was reviewed to determine whether any federally-listed, rare species occur at or near the Site. The USFWS rare species database includes the following four species in Queens County:

1. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) - bird

2. Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii) - bird

3. Seabeach Amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) - plant

4. Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) - fish

The Piping Plover inhabits and nests on open, sandy beaches. Piping Plovers are not expected at the Site, given that this habitat does not exist in its vicinity. The shoreline of the ConEd Complex is comprised of rip-rap and not sandy beach.

The northeastern populations of Roseate Terns almost always nest in association with Common Terns (Sterna hirundo) under the cover of dense vegetation, rocks, driftwood, or artificial structures (Gochfield et al., 1998). Based on a review of known Roseate Tern nesting locations, the Site does not serve as a breeding colony for either Common or Roseate Terns (USFWS, 1998). The Roseate Tern Recovery Plan indicates that the nearest Roseate Tern nesting site is located in the Jamaica Bay area of Queens (USFWS, 1998). According to recent NYSDEC survey data, 87% of Roseate Terns in New York State nest in a single colony, at Great Gull Island off the eastern end of Long Island (NYSDEC, 2010a).

It is highly unlikely that Seabeach Amaranth occurs at the Site as this species is restricted to open sandy portions of ocean beaches between the high tide line and the toe of the primary dune (NJDEP 2010). This type of open beach habitat is not present at the Site.

In New York, the Shortnose Sturgeon inhabits the Hudson River estuary, where it moves seasonally between New York Harbor and the Troy Dam (New York Natural Heritage Program, 2010). There are no reports of the shortnose sturgeon inhabiting the East River on a regular basis (NYHP 2010). In addition, based on correspondence received from the National Marine Fisheries Service, the project is not anticipated to have any impact on listed aquatic species since no in-water work is proposed (Appendix B).

3.3.1.4 Critical Environmental Areas

The Site is not located within a Critical Environmental Area, based on a review of the online NYSDEC database (2010b). The nearest Critical Environmental Area to the Site is Jamaica Bay, located approximately 10 miles away on the southern shore of Queens.

3.3.2 Potential Impacts

Potential impacts to vegetation, fish, wildlife and rare species are presented in the following sections. Impacts are anticipated to be negligible because there are minimal natural resources on the existing Site that could be impacted by the construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment.

3.3.2.1 Vegetation and Rare Plant Species

The LCEP Equipment is anticipated to have negligible impacts to vegetation, and no impact on any rare plant species. Much of the Site is already covered with impervious surfaces.

3.3.2.2 Fish and Wildlife

The LCEP Equipment is anticipated to have negligible impacts to fish and wildlife at the Site. Because the Site is heavily industrialized, it provides minimal habitat value. AGC has an approved Best Available Technology (BTA) determination for the Existing AGS Units intake and discharge structures that included a fish impingement and entrainment study. Unit 2 will be retired as a result of the LCEP and therefore the water used for cooling this unit will be eliminated. When the LCEP is implemented cooling water use will be reduced and any reductions would have a linear relationship to impacts. There are no anticipated impacts to rare species as a result of the construction or operation of the LCEP Equipment.

Fish

The LCEP Equipment will use dry cooling, and therefore no water withdrawals are required from the East River for cooling. In fact, the reduction in operation of the Existing AGS Units as part of the LCEP will result in a decrease in cooling water use at the AGS Facility, and a decrease in East River water use, which will be a benefit from the Project.

Potential silt and sediment runoff from construction and operational activities will be minimized through the use of erosion and sedimentation control measures.

Birds

Potential impacts to birds include collisions with stacks, buildings, construction vehicles and other structures at the Site. In addition, some birds may be displaced by construction noise and facility operation. The ConEd Complex is already heavily industrialized with existing structures and stacks in the area surrounding the Site.

The magnitude of the potential collision and displacement impacts will vary by species and the seasonal timing of construction activities. Given the industrial history of the ConEd Complex and New York City as a whole, species that will likely occur at the Site are generalist species that have become habituated to human-altered habitats. Adverse impacts to birds due to construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment are anticipated to be minor.

Mammals

Potential impacts to mammals include collisions with construction vehicles and displacement due to construction noise and facility operations. The typical mammalian species that likely occur at or near the Site are generalist species that have become habituated to human- altered habitats. Existing roadways, industrial facilities, and chain-link fences fragment existing habitat and make it unsuitable for larger mammalian species. Adverse impacts to mammals due to construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment are anticipated to be minor.

3.3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

As discussed in Section 3.3.1.3, there are four federally listed endangered species listed in Queens County. However, it is highly unlikely that any of these species occur within the Site or ConEd Complex. Habitat for the listed species (Piping Plover, Roseate Tern, Seabeach Amaranth and Shortnose Sturgeon) does not occur within the Site. There will be no impact to any aquatic-listed species, according to correspondence received from the National Marine Fisheries Service, and there are no records of any state-listed rare species at or near the Site (Appendix B). Impacts to threatened or endangered species are not anticipated.

3.3.3 Proposed Mitigation

The potential impact to biological, terrestrial and aquatic resources from the LCEP Equipment is minimal. The ConEd Complex is fully developed and has been operating as a location of energy production for over 100 years. No water withdrawal from the East River for cooling purposes is required due to the use of dry cooling technology, and therefore there are no impingement or entrainment issues for the LCEP Equipment. Because of the reduced operation of some of the Existing AGS Units, there will be a corresponding reduction in cooling water use, and therefore an overall net reduction in water use at the AGS Facility.

The following mitigation measures will be utilized at the Site in order to ensure that any potential impacts to biological, terrestrial and aquatic resources are minimized.

Erosion control measures will be installed at the Site during construction to prevent any disturbed soils from being washed off the Site into nearby surface water bodies. See Section 3.1 for an overview of erosion control measures and other appropriate construction best management practices.

Prior to construction, AGC will obtain coverage for construction of the LCEP Equipment under NYSDEC’s Stormwater General Permit for Construction Activities, which will ensure that siltation and sedimentation impacts are minimized. Best management practices will be utilized to control stormwater runoff and prevent contamination from site activities.

Erosion control measures will mitigate potential impacts on water quality and aquatic habitat within the East River and Luyster Creek. The use of standard erosion control measures will reduce the potential impacts to fish within these adjacent water bodies.

Following the completion of construction activities, all disturbed soils will be stabilized in order to minimize potential runoff. Because the Site has been previously industrialized, the operation of the LCEP Equipment is not anticipated to have any significant impacts on aquatic or terrestrial wildlife. The LCEP Equipment does not require any water withdrawal or discharge from the East River, and in fact will reduce the water withdrawal, which will ultimately reduce any potential impacts to this water body.

3.3.4 References

Gochfeld, Michael, Joanna Burger and Ian C. Nisbet. 1998. Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/370doi:10.2173/bna.370

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). [Internet] 2010. Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Designations in the Northeastern United States. Available from: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/webintro.html

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2010. Sea-beach Amaranth Fact Sheet. Division of Parks and Forestry, Office of Natural Lands Management, Trenton, NJ. Available from: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/amaranthweb/fact_sheets/NJ.pdf

New York Natural Heritage Program. 2010. Shortnose Sturgeon Fact Sheet. Albany, New York. Available from: http://www.acris.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=7168

New York State Breeding Bird Atlas 2000 [Internet]. 2000-2005. Release 1.0. Albany (New York): New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. [updated 2007 Jun 11; cited 2010 Jul 07]. Available from: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7312.html.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). [Internet] 2010a. Roseate Tern Fact Sheet. Available from: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7084.html

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. [Internet] 2010b. Critical Environmental Areas in Queens County. Available from: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/25142.html.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 1997. Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New York Bight Watershed. Southern New England. New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems Program, Charlestown, Rhode Island.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Roseate Tern Northeastern Population Recovery Plan. Prepared by Northeast Roseate Tern Recovery Team, Northeast Region, Hadley, Massachusetts.

3.4 Climate and Air Quality

This section describes the existing conditions and potential impacts to air quality due to the LCEP. In addition, this section presents the methods by which the LCEP will be permitted, in accordance with federal and state regulations, and additional measures beyond those required by the regulatory agencies that will be voluntarily put in place to guarantee a reduction in the emissions from the AGS Facility.

The existing AGS Facility is utilized to meet electric demand and maintain electric grid stability within the City. The modification of the facility through the addition of the LCEP, retirement of Unit No. 2, and implementation of enforceable emissions limits on existing Unit No. 4 and 5 at AGS will result in a net increase in emissions from the LCEP below the thresholds for PSD and Nonattainment New Source Review. The LCEP will utilize a Siemens H class combustion turbine in a combined cycle operating mode. The H class combustion turbine is the most efficient machine available in today’s

market. The heat rate, or the amount of fuel in Btu’s required to generate one kilowatt hour of electricity for the H class combustion turbine is the lowest of the available combined cycle technologies. A comparison of the other combine cycle technologies available demonstrates the efficiency of the H class turbine.

Heat Rate (LHV) Btu/kwhr @ ISO Combine Cycle Combustion Turbine 1 Conditions Siemens 8000H 2 5,687 Siemens 6000G 5,803

Siemens 5000F 5,960 GE 7001FB 5,950 GE 7001FA 6,090 Mitsubishi M501G 5,843 Mitsubishi M701G 5,755 1 – Representative data is based on manufacturer’s literature for new, clean units 2. - Proposed Unit for the LCEP

Because NYISO uses economic dispatch to schedule generation resources for operation and the LCEP Equipment will be one of the most efficient if not the most efficient, and therefore lowest cost units, the LCEP Equipment will be one of the first units to operate, resulting in reduced operation for other less efficient plants in the City, so that newer, cleaner unit will be utilized to meet the continually growing electric demand within the City.

3.4.1 Existing Conditions

The existing climate and air quality in the vicinity of the Site are discussed in Sections 3.4.1.1 to 3.4.1.3.

3.4.1.1 Climate Characteristics

The Site is located east of the East River in the Astoria section of Queens Borough. To the west, across the Hell Gate channel, are Wards Island and then Manhattan Island. To the north are the south reaches of Bronx Borough. To the north is Riker’s Island, and to the east is LaGuardia Airport. Queens Borough lies to the east, southeast, and south of the Site.

The climate at LaGuardia Airport is characterized as a coastal climate. The prevailing wind directions are from the northwest; however, winds from the east-northeast, northeast, south, southwest, and west-northwest are also common.

The region has warm summers and cold winters typical of a continental-type climate. Mean monthly temperatures range from a low of 20°F in January and February to a high of 75°F in July. Typical daytime high temperatures range from approximately 32°F during the winter, to about 83°F during the summer. The average annual temperature is a moderate 51°F.

Annual precipitation in the region is between 35 and 40 inches per year. Precipitation is somewhat evenly distributed during the year. However, there are more pronounced precipitation events during the spring and summer months. It is during this period, when thunderstorms associated with cold fronts and unstable air masses occur, that heavy rainfall can take place over short periods of time.

Local wind patterns are heavily influenced by the geography of the Hudson River Valley and the Atlantic Ocean. National Weather Service (NWS) data for the LaGuardia Airport office reflect predominant winds from the south and southeast, with a secondary maximum from the west and northwest directions. Although these wind directions prevail due to the passage of large-scale weather systems, they are accentuated by the proximity of nearby bodies of water.

3.4.1.2 Topography

The elevation of the Site is approximately 16 feet above mean sea level. Terrain within 6 kilometers (km) of the Site is generally rolling, with elevations limited to 80 feet or less, with the exception of several higher hills to 140 feet in northern Manhattan.

It is not until the Hudson River is crossed that elevated terrain (above stack top) is first encountered in the Palisades region of New Jersey. Elevated terrain is first reached in the Palisades approximately 8 km to the northwest of the Site. Thereafter, the terrain follows the river and rises to 363 feet above mean sea level at a distance of 10 km from the Site.

3.4.1.3 Criteria Pollutants and Existing Air Quality

The U.S. EPA has established NAAQS for six criteria pollutants: SO2, NO2, CO, O3, Pb, PM2.5,

and PM10. These standards have been developed to establish air quality limits which are protective of public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Areas which meet the NAAQS are classified as being in “attainment”. Areas which do not meet the NAAQS are classified as being in “nonattainment”. As indicated in Table 3.4-1 below, the ambient air quality in the vicinity of the Site is

nonattainment for PM2.5 and O3. The designated level of nonattainment for O3 is moderate

and severe for PM2.5. Details of the attainment status for these and the other criteria pollutants are listed in Table 3.4-1.

Table 3.4-1: LCEP Vicinity Attainment Status per 40 CFR 81.333 as of June 2010 Pollutant Designation Date Classification Type CO 5/20/02 Attainment

NO2 Data not listed/available Cannot be classified or better than national standards

PM2.5 4/5/05 Nonattainment 1 PM10 Data not listed/available Data not listed/available

SO2 Data not listed/available Cannot be classified 2 O3 (8-hour) 6/15/04 Nonattainment (Severe) Pb Data not listed/available Not Designated Notes: 1. The PM10 Annual Standard was revoked 12/17/2006. The 24-hour standard is still in place. New York State attainment status for the 24-hour PM10 standard outside of New York County (Manhattan) is not listed at 40 CFR 81.333. 2. The 1-hour O3 standard was revoked effective June 15, 2005, for all areas in New York State.

The attainment status in area surrounding the Site is based on detailed ambient air quality data, which were collected from ambient air monitors located in the vicinity. These data are representative of existing ambient air quality in the vicinity of the Site. Tables 3.4-2 and 3.4-3 list the pertinent data from nearby state-operated ambient air monitors, and the criteria for determining the background concentrations from that data.

Table 3.4-2 presents the existing background ambient air quality data for Astoria (Queens County). Since some of the criteria pollutants are not monitored in Queens, Table 3.4-3 was prepared to present the existing background ambient air quality data for

the entire City, including Queens. Monitoring data for the 1-hour NO2 and recent 1-hour

SO2 NAAQS are not readily available. AGC will consult with NYSDEC to determine the

appropriate background levels to consider for the NO2 and SO2 1-hour background ambient concentrations.

From 2006 to 2008, the three most recent years upon which the background air quality is

based, only one data gap occurred in the City: PM10 monitoring was discontinued after 2005 in all of New York State except for Franklin County, which is far removed from the Site. In order to fill this gap, New Jersey data were examined to determine data availability upwind of the Site. Data were available for 2006 to 2008 from Jersey City (see Table 3.4-3).

Table 3.4-4 presents an overall summary of the proposed LCEP background concentrations and the NAAQS for each pollutant and averaging period.

Table 3.4-2: Maximum Background Concentration Values (2006-2008) for Queens, New York

0.024 ppm 0.023 ppm 0.023 ppm 0.024 ppm 0.053 ppm NO Annual 2 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 45.3 ug/m3 100 ug/m3

33.6 ug/m3 31.8 ug/m3 30.8 ug/m3 31.9 ug/m3 24-hour 35 ug/m3 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York (average) PM2.5 11.6 ug/m3 11.4 ug/m3 11.0 ug/m3 11.3 ug/m3 Annual 15.0 ug/m3 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York (average)

3 PM10 24-hour PM10 monitoring discontinued in New York, New York 150 ug/m 0.039 ppm 0.031 ppm 0.032 ppm 0.039 ppm 0.5 ppm 3-hour 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 101 ug/m3 1,300 ug/m3

0.024 ppm 0.020 ppm 0.021 ppm 0.024 ppm 0.14 ppm SO 24-hour 2 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 62.4 ug/m3 365 ug/m3

0.005 ppm 0.004 ppm 0.007 ppm 0.007 ppm 0.030 ppm Annual 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 18 ug/m3 80 ug/m3

0.078 ppm 0.075 ppm 0.080 ppm 0.080 ppm 0.08 ppm 8-hour 3 3 O3 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 160 ug/m 160 ug/m Rolling 3- Pb month Lead is not monitored in Queens County 0.15 ug/m3 Average Notes: ppm = parts per million. ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. The short-term CO, PM10, and SO2 background concentrations (1-hour, 3-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour) are the highest of the second-high values. The annual NO2 and SO2 background concentrations are the highest of the annual mean values. th The 24-hour PM2.5 background concentration is the 3-year average of the 98 percentile values (updated 8/10). The annual PM2.5 background concentration is the 3-year average of the annual mean values (updated 8/10).

Table 3.4-3: Maximum Background Concentration Values (2006-2008) for All of New York City with Supplementary New Jersey Data

Averaging Pollutant 2006 2007 2008 Background NAAQS Period 2.3 ppm 3.1 ppm 2.3 ppm 3.1 ppm 35 ppm 1-hour 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 3,444 ug/m3 40,000 ug/m3 CO 1.6 ppm 2.4 ppm 1.6 ppm 2.4 ppm 9 ppm 8-hour 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 2,667 ug/m3 10,000 ug/m3 0.024 ppm 0.023 ppm 0.023 ppm 0.024 ppm 0.053 ppm NO Annual 2 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 45.3 ug/m3 100 ug/m3 33.6 ug/m3 31.8 ug/m3 30.8 ug/m3 31.9 ug/m3 24-hour 35 ug/m3 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York (average) PM2.5 11.6 ug/m3 11.4 ug/m3 11.0 ug/m3 11.3 ug/m3 Annual 15.0 ug/m3 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York (average)

PM10 monitoring discontinued in New York, New York 52 ug/m3 49 ug/m3 74 ug/m3 3 3 PM10 24-hour 74 ug/m 150 ug/m Consolidated Fire House, 355 Newark Consolidated Fire House, 355 Newark Consolidated Fire House, 355 Newark Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey 0.039 ppm 0.031 ppm 0.032 ppm 0.039 ppm 0.5 ppm 3-hour 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 101 ug/m3 1,300 ug/m3 0.024 ppm 0.020 ppm 0.021 ppm .024 ppm 0.14 ppm SO 24-hour 2 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 62.4 ug/m3 365 ug/m3 0.005 ppm 0.004 ppm 0.007 ppm 0.007 ppm 0.030 ppm Annual 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 18 ug/m3 80 ug/m3 0.078 ppm 0.075 ppm 0.080 ppm 0.080 ppm 0.08 ppm 8-hour 3 3 O3 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 14439 Gravett Road, New York 160 ug/m 160 ug/m Rolling 3- 0.02 ug/m3 0.02 ug/m3 0.01 ug/m3 Pb month JHS 126, 424 Leonard Street, JHS 126, 424 Leonard Street, JHS 126, 424 Leonard Street, 0.02 ug/m3 0.15 ug/m3 Average Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Notes: JHS = Junior High School. ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. The short-term CO, PM10, and SO2 background concentrations (1-hour, 3-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour) are the highest of the second-high values. The annual NO2 and SO2 background concentrations are the highest of the annual mean values. th The 24-hour PM2.5 background concentration is the 3-year average of the 98 percentile values (updated 8/10). The annual PM2.5 background concentration is the 3-year average of the annual mean values (updated 8/10). New Jersey PM10 values were examined for 2006-2008, when the City values were not available. The New Jersey values are high and may not be representative.

Table 3.4-4: 2006-2008 Background Concentration Summary for the Site

Background Concentrations Averaging Pollutant NAAQS Period Astoria, New York, Jersey City, Queens County New York New Jersey 35 ppm 3.1 ppm 3.1 ppm 1-hour - (40,000 ug/m3) 3,444 ug/m3 3,444 ug/m3 CO 9 ppm 2.4 ppm 2.4 ppm 8-hour - (10,000 ug/m3) 2,667 ug/m3 2,667 ug/m3 1-hour1 100 ppb - - -

NO2 0.053 ppm 0.024 ppm 0.024 ppm Annual - (100 ug/m3) 45.3 ug/m3 45.3 ug/m3 24-hour 35 ug/m3 31.9 ug/m3 31.9 ug/m3 - PM2.5 Annual 15 ug/m3 11.3 ug/m3 11.3 μg/m3 -

3 3 PM10 24-hour 150 ug/m Not Measured Not Measured 74 ug/m 1-hour2 0.075 ppm - - - 0.14 ppm 0.024 ppm .024 ppm 24-hour 3 3 3 - SO2 (365 ug/m ) 62.4 ug/m 62.4 ug/m 0.030 ppm 0.007 ppm 0.007 ppm Annual - (80 ug/m3) 18 ug/m3 18 ug/m3 0.075 ppm 0.080 ppm 0.080 ppm O 8-hour - 3 (150 ug/m3) 160 ug/m3 160 ug/m3 Quarterly Pb 0.15 ug/m3 Not Measured 0.02 ug/m3 - Average Notes: 1. 3-year average of 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average. 2. Final rule signed June 2, 2010. 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average.

3.4.2 Potential Impacts

3.4.2.1 Pollutants Emitted from Combine Cycle Combustion Turbine and Auxiliary Boiler

The combustion of natural gas and ULSD in a CT will result in air emissions which include

CO2, NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, CO, VOCs and Pb. Likewise, combustion of natural gas in the

auxiliary boiler will produce products of combustion including CO2, NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, CO

and VOCs. NOX and VOCs are precursors to the criteria pollutant O3. NOX is the generic term for a group of reactive gases, all of which contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts.

NOX form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. NO2 is a

common form of a NOX in the atmosphere, and in large amounts can form reddish-brown

coloration over industrialized areas. Please note that NOX and NO2 are presented separately in several of the tables in this section because these pollutants are regulated differently with

respect to NSR/PSD emission threshold levels. However NO2 is included within the NOX value.

New York State has promulgated a regulation to implement a regional agreement between ten states, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), in order to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants. The regulation creates a regulatory structure for

incentives and penalties designed to reduce CO2 emissions statewide. The agreement establishes a market-based “cap-and-trade” auction system that requires power plants to

obtain allowances to cover the amount of their CO2 emissions. The requirements of 6 NYCRR 242 are applicable to LCEP because the combined cycle CT has an output rating of 25 MW or

greater. AGC will be required to purchase sufficient CO2 allowances at auction, which are at

least equal to the CO2 emissions from the new CT.

Nitrogen Oxides

NOX are formed in the combustion process primarily as a result of the thermal reaction between nitrogen and oxygen (introduced in the combustion air) under the elevated

temperature conditions inherent in gas turbine (GT) combustors (thermal NOX). CTs also

produce NOX emissions from the oxidation of nitrogen contained in the fuel being fired. The fuel-bound nitrogen content of natural gas is lower than any fossil fuel.

NOX emissions are an important consideration because of the wide variety of potential

health and environmental effects attributed to them. NOX emissions are one of the main

ingredients involved in the formation of ground-level O3, which can trigger respiratory

problems, and potentially react to form nitrate particles, acid aerosols, as well as NO2, which can also cause respiratory problems. It also contributes to the formation of acid rain and to nutrient overload that deteriorates water quality.

Sulfur Dioxide

SO2 is formed by the reaction of sulfur found in the fuel with oxygen from the

combustion air. Natural gas has only trace quantities of sulfur, resulting in very low SO2

emissions. SO2 emissions from the SiemensCT will be minimal and will be significantly lower than from existing AGS oil-fired units (approximately 99%) when firing 0.0015% sulfur by weight ULSD. Both the primary natural gas fuel and ULSD are considered clean fuels.

SO2 combines with water vapor to form acidic aerosols that can be harmful to the respiratory tract, aggravating symptoms associated with lung diseases such as asthma

and bronchitis. SO2 is a primary contributor to acid deposition. Impacts of SO2 deposition include the acidification of lakes and streams, damage to vegetation, damage to

materials, and reduced visibility (U.S. EPA 2008a). SO2 is also a precursor to PM formation.

Particulate Matter

PM emissions are denoted by the subscripts 10 and 2.5, meaning PM less than 10

microns in diameter (PM10) and PM less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). PM results from trace quantities of non-combustible matter in the fuel. The generation of PM is also

associated with the formation of ammonium salts resulting from the reaction of residual ammonia used in emissions control systems. PM emissions are minimal when burning natural gas and remain very low when firing ULSD. For CTs, all PM is typically less than

10 microns in diameter (PM10). Although PM2.5 emissions are a portion of measured PM10 emissions, they are regulated separately and, to present a very conservative analysis,

PM2.5 emissions have been assumed to be equal to the emissions of PM10.

PM2.5 has been associated with a number of health effects. Epidemiological studies have

shown a significant correlation between elevated PM2.5 levels and premature mortality.

Other important effects associated with PM2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restricted activity days), lung disease, decreased lung function, asthma attacks, and certain cardiovascular problems.

Individuals particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children (U.S. EPA, 2008b). PM may also cause soiling and corrosion of materials. PM also contributes to atmospheric haze that degrades visibility (U.S. EPA, 2007).

Carbon Monoxide

CO emissions are formed due to incomplete combustion of the fuel typically caused by insufficient residence time in the combustion system. CO emissions are typically higher during transient and low load operating conditions. Control technologies used to minimize CO emissions include the use of clean burning fuels, state-of-the-art combustion technology, add-on oxidation catalyst systems, and establishing minimum load restrictions.

CO can bind with hemoglobin in the blood and may reduce the amount of oxygen carried to organs and tissues. Symptoms of high CO exposure may include shortness of breath, chest pain, headaches, confusion and loss of coordination. The potential health threat is most severe for those with cardiovascular disease (U.S. EPA, 2008c).

Ozone

O3 near the ground is created through a series of chemical reactions involving sunlight,

NOX and VOCs emitted during fossil fuel combustion. VOC emissions are generated due

to incomplete combustion of fuel. O3 is a pollutant that forms photochemically (i.e., a reaction caused by sunlight due to the presence of VOC in the lowest portion of the

atmosphere known as the troposphere). This makes VOC a precursor compound to O3

and it is regulated in order to minimize the formation rate of O3.

O3 is a respiratory irritant, can reduce lung function, and cause asthma attacks, nasal congestion and throat irritation, and reduce resistance to infection. It can inflame and damage (possibly permanently) cells that line the lungs, and aggravate chronic lung diseases. In addition, a number of studies have found a strong link between increases in

ground-level O3 and increased risk of premature death. O3 is toxic to vegetation,

inhibiting growth and causing leaf damage. O3 also deteriorates materials such as rubber and fabrics (U.S. EPA, 2008d).

Lead

Lead emissions originate from lead or lead compounds contained in fuels and are emitted during the combustion process. The emission of lead or lead compounds from natural gas fired CTs is considered de minimis due to the trace quantities of lead or lead compounds found in natural gas. Natural gas fuel analyses are not expected to contain lead compounds. Standards governing the emission of lead or lead compounds are more relevant when burning fuels such as oil or coal. Exposure to lead is associated with a broad range of health effects, including harm to the central nervous system, cardiovascular system, kidneys and immune system (U.S. EPA, 2008e). Children are particularly vulnerable: Exposures to low levels of lead early in life have been linked to effects on IQ, learning, memory and behavior (U.S. EPA, 2008e).

Non-criteria Pollutants

In addition to the established criteria pollutants, NYSDEC has established ambient air quality standards for some non-criteria pollutants, as noted in 6 NYCRR 257. Specifically, these pollutants are beryllium, fluorides, and hydrogen sulfide. The LCEP will not emit any of these pollutants.

Ammonia

NH3 is a naturally occurring gas, but may also be produced as unreacted NH3 when it is

released or “slips” from the NOX SCR emissions control system. The vast majority of

global NH3 emissions are estimated to come from agricultural non-point sources. NH3 has

a sharp, distinct, penetrating odor detectable at very low concentrations. NH3 is a significant respiratory hazard for workers who experience long-term exposure to this gas

in constant average values greater than 25 ppm. In addition to respiratory effects, NH3 can cause skin and eye irritation and displace oxygen in the bloodstream. Long-term

exposure to NH3 can cause pneumonia (Alberta Government, 2006).

3.4.3 Air Quality Regulatory Framework

NYSDEC and the U.S. EPA have established numerous air pollution control regulations for modifications of major facilities. The construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment will be subject to the following federal and state air regulations that will be implemented through permits to be applied for by AGC:

State Air Regulations

o General Provisions (6 NYCRR 200)

o Title V Facility Permit Modification (6 NYCRR 201-6)

o General Prohibitions (6 NYCRR 211)

o Fuel Composition and Use – Sulfur Limitations (6 NYCRR 225-1)

o Stationary Combustion Installations (6 NYCRR 227-1)

o RACT For Major Facilities of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) (6 NYCRR 227-2)

o CO2 Budget Trading Program (6 NYCRR 242)

o CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program (6 NYCRR 243)

o CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program (6 NYCRR 244)

o CAIR SO2 Trading Program (6 NYCRR 245)

o Air Quality Standards (6 NYCRR 257)

Federal Air Regulations

o Primary and Secondary NAAQS (40 CFR 50)

o Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources - Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion Turbines (40 CFR 60, Subpart KKKK).

o Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources – Standards of Performance for Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units (40 CFR 60, Subpart Dc)

o Acid Rain Permit (Title IV) (40 CFR 72-78)

o National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Combustion Turbines (40 CFR 63, Subpart YYYY)

o Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting (40 CFR 98)

The following sections describe the state and federal regulations applicable to the Project, the applicable regulatory requirements, and how the modified AGS Facility will comply with those requirements.

3.4.3.1 State Air Regulations

6 NYCRR 200: General Provisions

The AGS Facility will operate in compliance with the General Provisions of the NYSDEC Air Regulations established in 6 NYCRR 200, including §200.6, which prohibits any air contamination source from emitting contaminants in quantities which alone or in combination with emissions from other air contamination sources would contravene any applicable ambient air quality standard and/or cause air pollution. Section 200.7 requires any owner or

operator of an air contamination source equipped with an emission control device to operate the device and keep it in a satisfactory state of maintenance and repair in accordance with ordinary and necessary practices, standards and procedures, inclusive of manufacturer’s specifications, required to operate the device effectively.

6 NYCRR 201-6: Title V Facility Permits

The AGS Facility is subject to the requirements of 6 NYCRR Subpart 201-6: Title V Operating Permits which requires the proponent to submit an application to modify the existing Title V Operating Permit and receive NYSDEC approval prior to construction and operation. The LCEP constitutes a proposed modification to an existing major source, the AGS. The modification will propose emission caps on the AGS Facility for the purpose of remaining below NSR thresholds for both PSD and Nonattainment Review in accordance with the requirements of Section 201-7.2 of the NYSDEC regulations. Please see Appendix C for the Title V Operating Permit Application Forms.

6 NYCRR 211: General Prohibitions

The AGS Facility will operate in compliance with the General Prohibitions of the NYSDEC Air Regulations established in 6 NYCRR 211. Section 211.2 prohibits the emissions of air contaminants to the atmosphere of such quantity, characteristic or duration which are injurious to human, plant or animal life or property, or which unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. Section 211.2 also prohibits any air contamination source from emitting any material having opacity greater than or equal to 20% (6-minute average) except for one continuous 6-minute period per hour of not more than 57% opacity.

6 NYCRR 225-1: Fuel Composition and Use: Sulfur Limitations

Section 225-1.2(a)(1) prohibits the use of oil with 0.75% sulfur by weight for use in any stationary combustion installation with a total heat input greater than 250 MMBtu/hr. The SiemensCT will utilize ULSD as a backup fuel with a sulfur content of 0.0015% by weight, thus complying with the 6 NYCRR 225-1 fuel sulfur content standard. Compliance with the standard will be demonstrated through fuel sampling conducted to satisfy the applicable New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) requirements (40 CFR Subpart KKKK).

6 NYCRR 227-1: Stationary Combustion Installations

Section 227-1.2(a)(1) limits the particulate emissions from any stationary combustion installation firing oil with a maximum heat input capacity of 250 MMBtu/hr or more to 0.10 lb/MMBtu. The maximum PM emission rate from the LCEP CT while firing ULSD will be 0.0134, thus complying with the standard.

Section 227-1.3(a) prohibits the operation of any stationary combustion installation which exhibits greater than 20% opacity (6-minute average), except for one 6-minute period per hour of not more than 27% opacity. Section 227-1.4(a) requires that a continuous opacity monitoring system be installed on any stationary combustion installation with a maximum

heat input capacity greater than 250 MMBtu/hr. However, this provision does not apply to GTs. Compliance with the Section 227-1.3(a) opacity limit for the LCEP will be demonstrated by opacity observations in accordance with EPA Method 9 during the performance testing conducted for NSPS compliance.

6 NYCRR 227-2: RACT for Major Facilities of NOX

6 NYCRR 227-2 applies to major facilities of NOX that contain specified source types,

including boilers and CTs. The AGS Facility is subject to the NOX RACT requirements of 6 NYCRR 227-2 and must demonstrate that the control technologies used on its sources should be considered RACT for that source as part of the Title V approval process.

The NOX RACT limits for combined cycle CTs with a maximum heat input rate of 10 MMBtu/hr or greater prior to July 1, 2014 are as follows:

42 ppm, volumetric dry (ppmvd) at 15% O2 firing natural gas

65 ppmvd at 15% O2 firing oil

The SiemensCT will have maximum NOX stack concentrations of 2 ppmvd at 15% O2 firing

natural gas, and 5 ppmvd at 15% O2 firing ULSD, thus complying with the NOX RACT limits.

Compliance with the NOX RACT standards for the CT will be demonstrated using a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS), in accordance with §227-2.6(b). A CEMS plan for the LCEP Equipment will be submitted to the Department for approval at least 180 days prior to equipment installation. A CEMS certification protocol will be submitted to the Department for approval at least 60 days prior to compliance testing. The CEMS will be installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated in accordance with §227-2.6(b)(3) and will meet the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of §227-2.6(b)(4).

The LCEP Equipment auxiliary boiler, with a heat input rating of 30 MMBtu/hr, is classified as

a mid-size boiler under the NOX RACT rule. The NOX RACT emission limit for a mid-size boiler

firing natural gas prior to July 1, 2014 is 0.10 lb/MMBtu. The maximum NOX emission rate

from the LCEP auxiliary boiler will be 0.029 lb/MMBtu, thus complying with the NOX RACT limit.

Compliance with the NOX RACT limit for the auxiliary boiler will be demonstrated through compliance testing conducted in accordance with §227.2.6(c). A compliance test protocol will be submitted to the NYSDEC for approval at least 30 days prior to emissions testing. The testing will be conducted using EPA Method 7E from 40 CFR 60, Appendix C. A compliance test report will be submitted to the Department for approval no later than 60 days after completion of the emissions test.

6 NYCRR 231: New Source Review for New and Modified Facilities

AGC is proposing to retire existing Unit No. 2 and impose enforceable emissions limits on existing Unit No. 4 and 5 at AGS as part of the LCEP modification in order to ensure that the

net emissions from the facility modification will remain below the NSR permitting thresholds. These limitations are included in this application for a Title V Operating Permit modification in accordance with Subpart 201-6. The emission limits and emission reduction credits generated by instituting the limitation on Unit 4 and 5 and shutting Unit 2 will become effective upon commercial operation of the LCEP. The modification will be below the permitting thresholds contained in Part 231 of the NYSDEC Air Regulations. The emissions analysis is described in Section 4 of this application and all of the modified Title V permit conditions will be made enforceable in accordance with the requirements of Subpart 231-6.

6 NYCRR 242: CO2 Budget Trading Program

6 NYCRR 242 establishes the CO2 Budget Trading Program, which is designed to reduce GHG

emissions in New York State by limiting emissions of CO2 from stationary sources. The

SiemensCT will be a CO2 Budget Unit, as it will serve a generator with a nameplate capacity equal to or greater than 25 MW.

The applicable CO2 Budget Trading Program requirements for the LCEP Equipment will be

incorporated into the modified Title V permit for the AGS Facility. The CO2 emissions from the

SiemensCT will be monitored with a certified CEMS in accordance with §242-8.8. CO2

allowances will be held in an amount at least equal to the CO2 emissions from the turbine for each control period. All of the required recordkeeping and reporting requirements of §242- 1.5(e) will be met for the CT.

6 NYCRR 243: CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Permit

The CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program is designed to mitigate interstate transport of

fine particulates and NOX by limiting emissions of NOX from fossil fuel-fired electricity generating units during the Ozone Season. The LCEP Equipment will be subject to the CAIR

NOX Ozone Season Trading Program because the SiemensCT has an output rating of 25 MW or greater and the electricity generated by the facility will be sold. In accordance with the

CAIR NOX Ozone Season requirements, as of the allowance transfer deadline for a control

period, the AGC will hold sufficient CAIR NOX Ozone Season allowances available for compliance deductions for the control period from May 1 through September 30 of each year in a compliance account. The amount of allowances will be at least equal to the tons of total

NOX emissions for the control period.

6 NYCRR 244: CAIR NOX Annual Trading Permit

The CAIR NOX Budget Trading Program is designed to mitigate interstate transport of fine

particulates and NOX by limiting emissions of NOX from fossil fuel-fired electricity generating

units during the non-Ozone Season. The LCEP Equipment will be subject to the CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program because the CT has an output rating of 25 MW or greater and the

electricity generated by the facility will be sold. In accordance with the CAIR NOX Annual Trading requirements, as of the allowance transfer deadline for a control period, the AGC will

hold sufficient CAIR NOX allowances available for compliance deductions for the control

period from January 1 through December 31 of each year in a compliance account. The

amount of allowances will be at least equal to the tons of total NOX emissions for the control period.

6 NYCRR 245: CAIR SO2 Trading Program

The CAIR SO2 Trading Program is designed to mitigate interstate transport of fine

particulates and SO2 by limiting emissions of SO2 from fossil fuel-fired electricity generating

units. The LCEP Equipment will be subject to the SO2 Trading Program because the SiemensCT has an output rating of 25 MW or greater and the electricity generated by the

facility will be sold. In accordance with the CAIR SO2 Trading requirements, as of the

allowance transfer deadline for a control period, the LCEP will hold sufficient CAIR SO2 allowances available for compliance deductions for the control period from January 1 through December 31 of each year in a compliance account. The amount of allowances will be at

least equal to the tons of total SO2 emissions for the control period.

6 NYCRR 257: Air Quality Standards

6 NYCRR 257 defines the air quality standards promulgated by NYSDEC to be protective of human health. These standards are numerically prescribed contaminant level that shall not be exceeded. Such contaminant levels may include instantaneous, short-term, or long-term concentrations of individual contaminants or grouping of contaminants having synergistic effects. Such standards may also be described in terms of net effects resulting from the occurrence of individual contaminants or grouping of various contaminants.

An air quality impact analysis has been conducted to demonstrate that the emissions from the LCEP Equipment will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the NYSDEC air quality standards.

3.4.3.2 Federal Air Regulations

40 CFR 50: National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards

40 CFR 50 establishes the NAAQS. Primary NAAQS define levels of air quality which the Administrator judges are necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Secondary NAAQS define levels of air quality which the Administrator judges necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. The NAAQS are subject to revision, and additional primary and secondary standards may be promulgated as the U.S. EPA Administrator deems necessary to protect the public health and welfare.

The U.S. EPA has established NAAQS for six criteria pollutants; SO2, NO2, CO, O3, Pb, and PM

(PM2.5 and PM10). These standards have been developed to establish air quality limits which would protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. The Air Quality Dispersion Modeling section of the Title

V modification application demonstrates that the emissions from the LCEP will not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS.

40 CFR 52.21: Prevention of Significant Deterioration

The U.S. EPA’s PSD Regulations establish requirements for the construction of a new major stationary source or the major modification of any existing major stationary source located in an attainment area. The emissions from the LCEP Equipment and the existing emission sources will be limited by permit so that the emissions resulting from the LCEP do not exceed the significance thresholds contained in the PSD Regulation. By limiting the emissions to below the significance thresholds, the LCEP Equipment will not be a major modification of the AGS Facility, and therefore not subject to the requirements of the PSD Regulation.

40 CFR 60: New Source Performance Standards

The U.S. EPA has established NSPS for a variety of combustion and industrial processes. The SiemensCT and HRSG duct burner are subject to the operating constraints and emissions limitations contained in 40 CFR 60, Subpart KKKK, “Standards of Performance for Stationary

Combustion Turbines.” This regulation sets emission limitations for NOX and SO2. NOX emissions from an applicable unit are required to stay at or below 15 ppm while firing natural

gas and 42 ppm, both concentrations corrected to 15% oxygen (O2), while firing fuel oil. SO2

emissions are limited to 0.060 lb SO2/MMBtu. This is approximately equivalent to a fuel sulfur

content of 0.05% by weight (500 ppm). The SiemensCT will have a NOX emission limit of 2

ppm when firing natural gas and 5 ppm while firing ULSD and a maximum SO2 emission rate of 0.0015 lb/MMBtu, which are below the limits in Subpart KKKK, and therefore meet its requirements.

Continuous compliance with the NSPS NOX emission standards will be demonstrated by the

use of a certified CEMS to be installed on the stack. The NOX CEMS will be certified, operated, and maintained in accordance with the applicable requirements of the NSPS and 40 CFR 60, Appendix B, Performance Specification 2, “Specifications and Test Procedures for

SO2 and NOX Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources.” All of the applicable notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of Subpart KKKK will also be met for the SiemensCT.

Steam generating units with a maximum design heat input capacity of 100 MMBtu/hr or less, but greater than 10 MMBtu/hr that commence construction after June 9, 1989, are subject to the requirements set forth in 40 CFR 60, Subpart Dc, “Standards of Performance for Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units.” The auxiliary boiler proposed for the LCEP, with a maximum heat input rate of approximately 30 MMBtu/hr, meets these applicability criteria and is therefore subject to this NSPS.

The SO2 and PM emission standards contained in Subpart Dc do not apply to affected units that fire natural gas, such as the proposed auxiliary boiler. To comply with Subpart Dc, an initial notification will be submitted, indicating the date of construction and startup, the

boiler’s design heat capacity, and the fuel to be fired. Records will be kept of the amount of fuel combusted by the boiler during each day of operation. These records will be maintained for a period of at least two years, to comply with the NSPS recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR 63: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

The U.S. EPA has established National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for a variety of source categories. 40 CFR 63, Subpart YYYY, establishes national emission standards and operating limits for HAP emissions from stationary combustion turbines located at major sources of HAP emissions. A major source of HAP emissions is a facility with the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of HAPS at a rate of 25 tons or more per year. The existing AGS Facility is a major source of HAP emissions. Therefore, the LCEP Equipment is an affected source subject to the requirements of Subpart YYYY.

Subpart YYYY requires new stationary combustion turbine to limit the stack concentration of

formaldehyde to 91 parts per billion by volume, dry at 15% O2. The SiemensCT will comply with the Subpart YYYY formaldehyde emission standard using an oxidation catalyst. In accordance with Subpart YYYY, the 4-hour rolling average of the catalyst inlet temperature will be maintained within the range suggested by the catalyst manufacturer. Compliance with the Subpart YYYY emission and operating limitations will be maintained at all times except during startup, shutdown, and malfunction. The SiemensCT, oxidation catalyst, and all monitoring equipment will be operated and maintained in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at all times including during startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

An initial performance test will be conducted within 180 calendar days of startup of the SiemensCT to demonstrate compliance with the Subpart YYYY formaldehyde stack concentration limit. Subsequent performance tests will be conducted annually. The performance tests will be conducted using EPA Test Method 320 of 40 CFR 63, Appendix A to measure the stack formaldehyde concentration, and will be conducted at an operating load within 10% of maximum. Three test runs will be conducted, with the average result used to determine compliance with the standard.

The oxidation catalyst inlet temperature will be monitored on a continuous basis to demonstrate ongoing compliance. All ULSD usage by the SiemensCT will also be recorded.

An initial notification will be submitted not later than 120 calendar days after startup of the SiemensCT. A notification of intent to conduct an initial performance test will be submitted at least 60 calendar days before the test is scheduled to begin. A notification of compliance status, including the results of the performance test, will be submitted before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test.

Semiannual compliance reports will be submitted by July 31 and January 31 of each year. The semiannual compliance reports will detail each deviation from the emission and operating limitations, and the total ULSD usage during the previous 6-month period.

Copies of each notification and report submitted to comply with Subpart YYYY, records of all performance tests, and records of the occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, malfunction and maintenance will maintained. These records will be maintained so they can be readily accessed and are suitable for inspection. All required records will be kept for at least 5 years, with the most recent 2 years of records maintained on-site at all times.

The NESHAP for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers located at major sources of HAP emissions was vacated and remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2007. The U.S. EPA has proposed a NESHAP for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters located at major HAP sources (40 CFR 63, Subpart DDDDD). The proposed rule would apply to the LCEP Equipment auxiliary boiler, and require the submittal of an initial notification, the completion of annual boiler tune-ups, the submittal of semiannual compliance reports, and records of compliance demonstrations. There are no emissions limitations for natural gas fired boilers in the proposed rule. All of the applicable requirements of Subpart DDDDD, when it is promulgated, will be met for the auxiliary boiler.

40 CFR 72-78: Acid Rain Program

The SiemensCT will be a “New Unit” subject to the federal Acid Rain Program as an “Affected Unit”, in accordance with the definitions and requirements of 40 CFR 72 through 78. An “Affected Unit” is defined by the U.S. EPA as any “New Unit” that serves a generator to produce electricity for sale. The AGS Facility will become an “Affected Source” under the federal Acid Rain Program due to the LCEP Equipment and as such an Acid Rain Permit for the proposed new Affected Unit will need to be added to the applicable requirements of the AGS Title V Operating Permit. The purpose of this regulation is to “cap” or limit acid rain emissions from power plants in the United States.

The Acid Rain Program requires owners and operators of “Affected Units” to purchase

allowances to offset their potential emissions of SO2. “Affected Units” are also required to utilize a CEMS, certified and operated in accordance with 40 CFR 75. This requirement

includes the continuous measurement and recording of SO2, NOX, and CO2 emissions and the reporting of emissions to the U.S. EPA quarterly in an electronic on-line format. The U.S. EPA will require the owner/operator to appoint a Designated Representative from the AGS Facility for all submissions and allowance transactions related to the Acid Rain Program. The LCEP Equipment will meet all of the applicable requirements of the Acid Rain Program. The Phase II Title IV requirements are implemented in New York State through the Title V Operating Permit program. Please see Appendix C for the Air Quality Evaluation and Title V Operating Permit Modification Application.

40 CFR 98: Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting

40 CFR 98, the federal Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting rule, applies to electric generating facilities such as the AGS. Annual GHG emissions reporting will be required for the combined cycle CT under Subpart D. An annual report will be provided by March 31, for the

preceding calendar year providing the metric tons of CO2, methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide

(N2O) emitted from the LCEP CT, using the calculations methodologies specified in the rule.

3.4.4 AGS Emissions Reduction Strategy

The air emission reduction strategy for the AGS Facility is the installation of a new, highly efficient SiemensCT with state-of-the-art add-on emission controls. Unit No. 2 at the existing AGS will be retired and and enforceable emission limits will be established for existing Unit No. 4 and 5. Emission Reduction Credits (ERC), established by the retirement of Unit No. 2 and enforceable reduction in emissions from Unit No. 4 and 5 will be used to offset emissions from the new LCEP equipment with a net increase in emissions at the AGS below significant thresholds. The emission limits and emission reduction credits generated by shutting down Unit 2 and instituting the limitation on Unit 4 and 5 will become effective upon commercial operation of the LCEP. Therefore the modification will not trigger the PSD or the Nonattainment NSR (NANSR) permitting requirements. As a result, the addition of the LCEP Equipment is classified as a minor modification to the existing AGS Facility.

3.4.4.1 Siemens H-class Turbine Emissions

The SiemensCT is designed to limit emissions through a variety of technologies and controls. The following discussion outlines the SiemensCT factory-installed technologies along with the add-on controls that further minimize and mitigate potential air emissions. The projected emission rates of the SiemensCT with the add-on controls are presented in this section.

Nitrogen Oxides

The SiemensCT will utilize dry low NOX combustors and SCR to limit NOX emissions to 2 ppm

at 15% O2 when firing natural gas, and will utilize water injection and SCR to limit NOX

emissions to 5 ppm at 15% O2 when firing ULSD.

Water injection limits NOX formation by injecting small amounts of water into the immediate vicinity of the combustor burner flame. The presence of water mixes in the flame with the combustion by-products, and reduces the flame temperatures by dilution and cooling. This

process results in a lower flame temperature and reduced formation of thermal NOX.

The SCR system removes NOX from the SiemensCT exhaust gas stream by the injection of

aqueous NH3 solution into the hot exhaust gas path where it passes through a catalyst grid.

The catalyst causes a chemical reaction between the aqueous NH3 and the hot stack gases

which reduces most of the NOX to nitrogen (N2) and water. The SCR will use a 19% aqueous

NH3 solution (the most commonly used form for this application). The NOX emissions from the SiemensCT will be reduced by approximately 90% by the SCR system.

Sulfur Dioxide

AGC has committed to firing natural gas as the primary fuel and ULSD as a backup fuel for the SiemensCT. Natural gas has a negligible amount of sulfur content and ULSD contains 15

ppm (0.0015%) sulfur, resulting in extremely low SO2 emissions from the SiemensCT without additional controls.

Particulate Matter

The emissions of PM2.5 from the SiemensCT have been conservatively assumed to be equal to

the emissions of PM10. PM emissions control will be achieved by efficiently burning low ash and low sulfur fuels. The SiemensCT will be fueled by natural gas and ULSD only, combined with state-of-the-art combustion technology and operating controls, to provide the most stringent degree of particulate emissions control available for combustion turbines.

Carbon Monoxide

The combustor design and configuration of the SiemensCT will achieve one of the lowest CO emission rates of any type of generation unit. The clean burning nature of natural gas and ULSD fuels minimizes CO emissions due to unburned carbon. CO emissions will be further reduced by an oxidation catalyst (also known as a CO catalyst). The SiemensCT will typically operate in the upper regions of its operating load range at temperatures high enough to minimize CO formation in the combustion process.

Ozone

As stated above, NOX and VOC emissions are precursors to O3 formation. The control

technologies to be used to minimize SiemensCT NOX emissions have been previously described. Control technologies used to minimize VOC emissions include the use of clean burning fuels, advanced combustion technology, add-on oxidation catalyst systems, and establishing minimum load restrictions. The SiemensCT will use a combustor design and configuration that achieves among the lowest VOC emission rate of any similar type of unit. The clean burning nature of natural gas and ULSD fuels will further minimize VOC emissions due to unburned carbon. Reductions of VOC emissions will also come from the oxidation catalyst used to control CO emissions. The SiemensCT will typically operate in the upper regions of its operating load range at combustion temperatures high enough to minimize VOC formation in the combustion process.

Ammonia

The SCR emissions control system will reduce the NOX emissions from the turbine by

injecting a 19% aqueous NH3 solution into the exhaust gas stream upstream of a catalyst.

The NOX and NH3 react on the surface of the catalyst to form N2 and water. Some portion of

the injected NH3 will pass through the catalyst unreacted. These unreacted NH3 emissions are

referred to as NH3 slip, which be limited to 5 ppm at 15% O2.

3.4.5 Potential Emissions

The potential annual emissions from the LCEP Equipment will be limited so that the AGS Facility emissions increases remain below the NSR significance thresholds. A conservative assumption of 8,322 hours per year of full load operation for the SiemensCT has been used for permitting purposes. These hours have been broken down by operating mode as follows: natural gas firing with no duct firing for up to 3,695.5 hours per year, natural gas firing with duct firing for up to 3,914 hours per year, and ULSD firing for up to 712.5 hours per year. SiemensCT emissions during startup (cold, warm and hot) and shutdown are summarized in Table 3.4-9. Projected annual emissions from the SiemensCT were calculated using the emission rates provided by the manufacturer, and using AP-42 emission factors, with an assumption of 100 startups per year. The natural gas fueled auxiliary boiler emissions are also included, assuming 100% load for up to 1,500 hours per year.

3.4.5.1 Combustion Turbine Emissions: Normal Operation

The SiemensCT is designed to limit emissions through efficient combustion and add-on emissions controls. The potential emissions from the SiemensCT are based on Siemens’ emissions data and AP-42 emission factors. The Siemens provided data are “end of stack” values which includes the application of emission controls (i.e., CO catalyst and SCR). Table 3.4-5 provides the operating parameters for each operating mode. Tables 3.4-6 and 3.4-7 summarize the maximum emission rates from the SiemensCT firing natural gas with and without duct burner firing, respectively. Table 3.4-8 summarizes the maximum emission rates from the SiemensCT firing ULSD (at 100% load, 59 degrees Fahrenheit). The emissions are conservatively based on annual operation at full load.

Table 3.4-5: Operating Parameters

GT- Btu/lb GT Duct Burner Units Operating Fuel Hrs/year MMBtu/hr fuel (lbs (MMBtu/hr) (HHV) (HHV) fuel/hr) Turbine Alone ULSD 712.5 2,235 20,295 110,118 0 Turbine and Duct Burner Natural Gas 3,914 2,623 23,079 112,221 33.3 Turbine Alone Natural Gas 3,695.5 2,590 23,079 112,243 0 HHV = High heating value of fuel.

Table 3.4-6: SiemensCT Maximum Emission Rates at 100% Load on Natural Gas Firing with Duct Burner Off

Emission Stack Conc. Pollutant Emission Factor Source Factor lb/hr Tons per Year (ppm @ 15% O 2) (lb/MMBtu)

PM10/PM2.5 --- Vendor 0.0042 10.9 21.2

SO2 Vendor 0.0006 1.6 3.1

NOX 2 Vendor 0.0076 20 38.9 CO 2 Vendor 0.0046 12 23.3 VOC 1 Vendor 0.0014 3.5 6.8

H2SO4 --- None 0.0002 0.6 1.2

CO2 --- Vendor 121.0 313,365 609,495

NH3 5 Vendor 0.0071 18 35.0 Notes: Data is based on Siemens H-class turbine operations at 100% load. ppm = parts per million, volumetric dry. VOC emission rate does not include any reduction from the oxidation catalyst.

Table 3.4-7: SiemensCT Maximum Emission Rates at 100% Load on Natural Gas Firing with Duct Burner On

Stack Conc. Emission Factor Emission Factor Pollutant lb/hr Tons per Year (ppm @ 15% O2) Source (lb/MMBtu)

PM10/PM2.5 --- Vendor 0.0043 11.3 23.3

SO2 --- Vendor 0.0006 1.6 3.3

NOX 2 Vendor 0.0076 20 41.2 CO 2 Vendor 0.005 13 26.8 VOC 1 Vendor 0.0016 4.2 8.7 Beryllium* --- AP-42 1.20E-08 1.73E-05 3.6E-05 Mercury* --- AP_42 2.60E-07 3.75E-04 7.7E-04

H2SO4 --- Vendor 0.0002 0.6 1.2

CO2 --- Vendor 121 317,434 653,914

NH3 5 Vendor .0071 18 37.1 Notes: Data is based on Siemens H-class turbine operations at 100% load. ppm = parts per million, volumetric dry. *Duct burner only, AP-42 emission factors of 1.2E-05 lb per million standard cubic feet (Beryllium)/2.6E-04 lb per million standard cubic feet (Mercury). VOC emission rate does not include any reduction from the oxidation catalyst.

Table 3.4-8: SiemensCT Maximum Emission Rates at 100% Load with ULSD Firing

Stack Conc. Emission Factor Emission Factor Pollutant lb/hr ton/yr (ppm @ 15% O2) Source (lb/MMBtu)

PM10/PM2.5 -- Vendor 0.0134 30 11.3

SO2 -- Vendor 0.0015 3.4 1.3

NOX 5 Vendor 0.0221 50 18.8 CO 4 Vendor 0.0108 24 9.0 VOC 1 Vendor 0.0016 3.5 1.3 Beryllium -- AP-42 3.10E-07 6.93E-04 2.60E-04 Pb -- AP-42 1.40E-05 3.13E-02 1.17E-02 Mercury -- AP-42 1.20E-06 2.68E-03 1.01E-03

H2SO4 -- Vendor 0.0006 1.3 0.5

CO2 -- Vendor 162.3 362,715 136,018

NH3 5 Vendor 0.0082 18 6.8 Notes: Data is based on Siemens H-class turbine operations at 100% load. ppm = parts per million, volumetric dry. VOC emission rate does not include any reduction from the oxidation catalyst.

3.4.5.2 SiemensCT Emissions: Startup and Shutdown

Emissions from the SiemensCT will be higher during periods of startup and shutdown, as compared to normal operation, due to the transient nature of these activities and the lower combustion and exhaust gas temperatures during these periods. As a conservative assumption, the potential emissions from startup activities have been estimated based on 100 starts with the corresponding number of shutdown events per year and natural gas firing. Even though the startup conditions anticipated would be distributed approximately 40 cold, 40 warm and 20 hot, the annual startup emissions estimates are based on the emissions during a worst-case emissions event, a cold startup. The maximum expected

short-term NOX, CO, VOC, SO2, and PM2.5 emission rates for a startup and shutdown event on an hourly basis, along with the resulting total potential emissions from these activities per year, are shown in Table 3.4-9. The shutdown emissions estimates are based on 100% load operation prior to initiating the shutdown procedure.

Table 3.4-9: SiemensCT – Hourly Emission Rates and Potential Emissions during Startup and Shutdown Pollutant lb/hr

Condition Time (min) NOX CO VOC SO2 PM 2.5 CO2 Cold (up to 65% Load) 52.50 130 434 134 2.9 7.4 117,289 Warm (up to 65% Load) 47.50 116 266 107 2.9 6.7 107,211 Hot (up to 65% Load) 42.50 102 220 88 2.9 6.1 97,133 SD 70% to Off 19.00 51 104 41 0.7 3.1 48,290 SD 100% to Off 49.00 59 108 42 1.9 9.7 176,742 Annual Emission @ 100 events Tons per Year Worst Case Start Condition (Cold) 7.4 24.8 7.7 0.2 0.4 6,702 Worst Case Stop Condition (100% 3.6 6.6 2.6 0.1 0.6 10,821 to off) Total 11.031.4 10.2 0.3 1.0 17,523

3.4.5.3 Auxiliary Boiler Emissions

The auxiliary boiler will utilize only natural gas as a fuel and is anticipated to operate not more than 2,500 hours per year. Table 3.4-10 provides a summary of the maximum hourly emission rates and annual potential emissions from the auxiliary boiler.

Table 3.4-10: LCEP Auxiliary Boiler – Hourly Emission Rates and Potential Emissions

Pollutant lb/hr @ 100% Load Tons per Year @ 1,500 hrs

NOx 0.87 0.65 CO 1.11 0.83

PM10 0.14 0.11

PM 2.5 0.14 0.11

SO2 0.02 0.01 VOC 0.09 0.07

CO2 3,600 2,700

3.4.5.4 Annual Project Potential Emissions

The resultant annual LCEP Equipment potential emissions, based on the maximum hourly emission rates for normal operation of the combined cycle turbine at 59ºF for 8,322 hours, 100 CT startup/shutdown events, and 1,500 hours of operation of the auxiliary boiler, are provided in Table 3.4-11. This represents an ultra conservative scenario because it would not be possible to operate the facility at full load for 8,322 hours and also have 100 starts.

Table 3.4-11: LCEP Equipment Potential Emissions Summary

Tons Per 12-Month Rolling Period Pollutant Potential To Emit (including Auxiliary Boiler @ 1,500 hrs & 100 CT Startup/Shutdowns)

NOX 105.60 CO 88.69

PM10/PM2.5 54.07

SO2 7.59 VOCs 26.23 Pb 0.01

H2SO4 2.75 Beryllium 0.000281 Mercury 0.000955

NH3 75.0

CO2 1,349,679

3.4.5.5 Determination of NSR/PSD Applicability and Emission Netting

The LCEP is a proposed modification to the existing AGS Facility, which is a major source of air pollution, as defined in the NYSDEC Air Regulations. Emissions netting is the process of evaluating prospective emission changes at an existing major source to determine if a significant “net emissions increase” of any pollutant will result from the modification. If the calculated net increase is significant, then NSR (NANSR or PSD) permitting rules would apply on a pollutant by pollutant basis. The LCEP Equipment will not result in a significant net emissions increase because AGC will retire existing Unit No. 2 and have enforceable emission caps on existing Unit No. 4 and 5 that will allow the addition of the LCEP Equipment to remain below the significant emissions thresholds in the NSR regulations.

Per 6 NYCRR 231-4.1(b)(7), the AGS Facility baseline period can consist of any 24 consecutive month period in the 5 year period preceding the date of receipt of an air application by the NYSDEC. The NYSDEC has informed AGC that the appropriate baseline period is the 24-month period from August 31, 2005 to August 30, 2007, within the applicable 5 year period. Emission reductions to be realized from the AGS Facility must be determined from “baseline actual emissions” calculated for the 24 consecutive month “baseline period” of August 31, 2005 to August 30, 2007. The AGS Facility baseline actual emissions are listed in Table 3.4-12. Table 3.4-13 presents the AGS Facility baseline emissions, the potential emissions of the LCEP Equipment, and the proposed facility-wide caps on emissions that will result in the modification being below PSD and NANSR significant increase levels.

Table 3.4-12: AGS Baseline Actual Emissions (August 31, 2005 to August 30, 2007) Baseline Emissions 2-Year Average for August 31, 2005 to August 30, 2007 Sulfuric CEMS RACT Total CO2 CO Lead SO2 VOC PMTotal PM10 PM2.5 Beryllium Fluoride Mercury Acid NOX NOX HAPs (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) Mist (tons) (tons)1 (tons) (tons) Unit 2 19,031.41 12.16 27.70 11.86 0 0.10 0.80 1.10 1.10 1.10 6.9E-06 0.0E+00 7.5E-05 0.000000 0.000000 Unit 4 720,427.58 153.44 678.94 660.89 0.025 700.37 28.72 112.73 93.60 81.06 4.7E-04 5.9E-01 2.6E-03 8.83 14.24 Unit 5 792,609.83 174.58 816.54 789.13 0.027 724.58 33.87 115.47 97.69 86.04 5.0E-04 6.1E-01 2.9E-03 10.00 16.19 Note: 1. Adjusted for the applicable NOX RACT emission rate per 6 NYCRR Part 227-2.4.

Table 3.4-13: LCEP/AGS NSR Applicability Summary

Tons Per 12-Month Rolling Period AGS Unit 2 AGS Unit 4 AGS Unit 5 NSR LCEP Net Total Emissions Significant Pollutant Potential Increase NSR Program ERCs Change Baseline Reduction Baseline Reduction Baseline Reduction Emissions Threshold Applicability TPY (ERCs) TPY (ERCs) TPY (ERCs) Generated TPY TPY TPY

NOX 11.86 11.86 660.89 24.57 789.13 44.67 105.60 81.10 24.50 25 No

NO2 (as NOX) 11.86 11.86 660.89 24.57 789.13 44.67 105.60 81.10 24.50 40 No CO 12.16 12.16 153.44 0.00 174.58 0.00 88.69 12.16 88.69 100 No

SO2 0.00 0.00 700.37 133.07 724.58 231.87 7.59 364.94 7.59 40 No PM 1.10 1.10 112.73 15.28 115.47 27.78 54.07 44.17 9.90 25 No

PM10 1.10 1.10 93.60 15.28 97.69 27.78 54.07 44.17 9.90 15 No

PM2.5 1.10 1.10 81.06 15.28 86.04 27.78 54.07 44.17 9.90 10 No VOC 0.80 0.80 28.72 0.51 33.87 0.92 26.23 2.23 24.00 25 No Pb 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 NA 0.00 1 No Fluoride 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 NA 0.00 3 No Beryllium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA 0.00 0 No Mercury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA 0.00 0 No

H2SO4 0.00 0.00 8.83 1.76 10.00 3.19 2.75 NA -2.20 7 No

3.4.6 Emissions Limitations

AGC is proposing an enforceable emissions cap for the existing AGS Unit No. 4 and 5 at the levels set forth in Table 3.4-14, and shut down of Unit 2, such that the net emissions resulting from the LCEP Equipment installation will be below each of the NSR and PSD significance thresholds contained in NYCRR 6 Subpart 231-6, “Modifications to Existing Major Facilities in Nonattainment Areas and Attainment Areas of the State within the Ozone Transport Region”. This ensures that the LCEP Equipment installation will not meet the definition of an NSR major modification.

AGC is proposing a facility-wide emissions cap for the AGS Facility at the levels set forth in Table 3.4-14 such that the criteria pollutants net emissions resulting from the LCEP Equipment installation are guaranteed to be reduced or stay the same. They will therefore also be below each of the NSR and PSD significance thresholds contained in NYCRR 6 Subpart 231-6, “Modifications to Existing Major Facilities in Nonattainment Areas and Attainment Areas of the State within the Ozone Transport Region”. This ensures that the LCEP Equipment installation will not result in an NSR major modification.

Table 3.4-14: LCEP/AGS Proposed Emission Limits

Tons Per 12-Month Rolling Period Pollutant Unit No. 4 Emissions Limit Unit No. 5 Emissions Limit TPY TPY

NOX 636.32 744.46 CO 161.41 189.08

SO2 697.50 719.36 PM 97.45 87.69

PM10 78.32 69.91 PM2.5 65.78 58.26 VOC 28.21 32.95

H2SO4 7.07 6.81

3.4.7 Air Quality Modeling

The following section describes the air quality modeling methodology used to determine the air quality impacts from the LCEP, and the results of the analyses. These analyses were conducted in accordance with the approved “Air Quality Screening Model Protocol” (ESS, 2010) and ”Air Quality Screening Results and Refined Modeling Protocol Supplement” (ESS, 2010)3. Initial SCREEN modeling was first conducted to identify the maximum impact concentrations. Refined modeling was then conducted using AERMOD, as described below. The modeling files are included on a compact disc in Appendix C.

3.4.7.1 Model Selection Factors

Several factors were considered for the air quality modeling for the LCEP Equipment: dispersion environment, stack height determination, cavity region, and local topography.

Dispersion Environment

Land use within a 3-km radius of the Site was classified in accordance with the method recommended by NYSDEC (Auer, 1978). This classification is necessary to determine whether rural or urban dispersion coefficients should be used in the dispersion modeling analysis. If more than 50% of the area is classified as urban, urban dispersion parameters should be used in the modeling. If more than 50% of the area is classified as rural, then rural dispersion parameters should be used.

Information contained on the USGS topographic map of the area (Central Park quadrangle) was sufficient to make the urban/rural determination. Figure 3.4-1 presents the area within 3 km of the Site, with the land use types identified. Urban land uses found within 3 km of the repowering station include commercial (C), industrial/light industrial (I1/I2), and compact residential (R2/R3). Rural land uses include natural metropolitan (A1), undeveloped (A3), and water surfaces (A5).

As shown in Figure 3.4-1, land use within 3 km of the Site is predominantly urban, accounting for approximately 64.45% of the area within 3 km. Therefore, urban dispersion coefficients were used in the air quality modeling analysis.

Good Engineering Practice Stack Height Determination

Federal stack height regulations limit the stack height used in performing dispersion modeling to calculate the air quality impacts from a source for regulatory purposes. Sources must be modeled at their actual physical stack height unless that height exceeds their calculated Good Engineering Practice (GEP) stack height. If the physical stack height is less than the GEP formula height, the actual stack height is input to the model and the potential for the plume

3 Air Quality Screening Model Protocol, Luyster Creek Energy Project at the Astoria Generating Station, June 23, 2010 and Air Quality Screening Results And Refined Modeling Protocol Supplement Luyster Creek Energy Project at the Astoria Generating Station, August 17, 2010.

to be affected by aerodynamic wakes (air flow affected by a building or other structure) created by nearby buildings must be evaluated.

A GEP stack height analysis was performed for the LCEP HRSG stack in accordance with the “Guideline for Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height”.4 The GEP stack height is defined as the greater of 65 meters (213 feet), measured from the base elevation of the stack, or the formula height determined from the following equation:

Height = H + 1.5L

Where

H = height of the nearby structure which maximizes height L = lesser dimension (height or projected width) of the structure

The GEP formula height is based on the “nearby” buildings that result in the greatest justifiable height. For the purposes of determining the maximum GEP formula height, “nearby” is limited to five building heights or widths, whichever is less, from the trailing edge of the building.

The HRSG will be the tallest structure on the Site. The HRSG building will be a squat structure, with a projected width greater than the height. The HRSG building will be 60 feet wide, 115 feet long and 115 feet high. The HRSG building was the controlling structure for determining the GEP formula height. The GEP formula height, based on the HRSG building, is 288 feet.

The proposed stack will be less than the GEP formula height, requiring building downwash to be assessed in the modeling analysis. The BPIP analysis files are included in Appendix C.

Cavity Region

The cavity region (the region near a building where air flow can cause the plume to be trapped) created by a building can extend out to three times the lesser of the building height or width. Cavity impacts need to be analyzed for these lesser downwind distances when the stack height is less than the cavity height. The cavity height can extend up to the structure height plus one-half the lesser of the structure height or projected width.

The turbine building will result in the highest cavity height and the greatest cavity region extent. The cavity region created by the HRSG building (115 feet wide by 115 high) could extend 345 feet from the structure and 172.5 feet above the ground. However, the HRSG stack height of 205 feet is taller than the cavity region created from the HRSG building, precluding entrapment of emissions within the cavity.

4 U.S. EPA, 1985. Guidelines for Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height (Technical Support Document for the Stack Height Regulations), Document Number EPA-450/4-80-023R. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. June.

Local Topography

Local topography plays a role in the selection of an appropriate dispersion model. Dispersion models can be divided into two categories: (1) those applicable to areas where terrain is less than the height of the top of the stack (simple terrain), and (2) those applicable to areas where terrain is greater than the height of the plume (complex terrain). The closest complex terrain is approximately 8 km to the northwest of the Site.

3.4.7.2 Models Selected For Use

The dispersion environment, potential for aerodynamic building downwash effects on ground- level concentrations, and the local topography help to determine the appropriate models for use in a dispersion modeling analysis. Simple terrain models are used to calculate concentrations in simple terrain (below stack-top elevation) and up to plume height in complex terrain. Complex terrain models are used to calculate concentrations in complex terrain (above stack-top elevation).

Based on stack heights that are less than the GEP formula height, and terrain above stack- top elevation 8 km from the stack, preliminary screening modeling was performed with U.S. EPA’s SCREEN3 model (version 96043).

SCREEN3 can be applied to simulate calculated 1-hour, ground-level calculations for single sources. The model incorporates the effects of building downwash in both the cavity and wake regions. The SCREEN3 model calculates 1-hour concentrations in simple terrain using the ISCST3 algorithms. For complex terrain elevations, the SCREEN3 model calculates a 24- hour concentration using the VALLEY model. The VALLEY model concentrations are based on six hours of persistent meteorological conditions, and allow the plume to come no closer than 10 meters to the ground. The SCREEN3 model also makes an ISCST3 calculation for intermediate terrain receptors. Intermediate terrain receptors have elevations that are greater than stack-top elevation but less than plume height. The higher of the VALLEY and ISCST3 calculations is used in the screening results.

3.4.8 SCREEN3 Modeling

3.4.8.1 Operating and Stack Parameters

SCREEN3 was applied to determine the maximum modeled air quality impact concentrations resulting from the operation of the LCEP Equipment. Screening was performed for the flue gas characteristics for a range of loads (typically 50%, 75%, and 100% of the fuel firing rate) and ambient temperatures for both natural gas and ULSD firing. The three ambient temperatures represent the minimum, average and maximum temperatures that would be expected throughout the year. The stack exit velocities and temperatures for natural gas and ULSD firing were provided by the turbine manufacturer and are provided in the Air Quality Evaluation and Title V Operating Permit Modification Application in Appendix C. The proposed stack height is 205 feet above grade.

The impacts from the auxiliary boiler were also determined using SCREEN3. Stack exhaust and emissions parameters modeled for the auxiliary boiler operating at 100%, 80% and 60% loads are also presented in the Air Quality Evaluation and Title V Operating Permit Modification Application in Appendix C. The proposed stack height for the auxiliary boiler is 130 feet above grade.

3.4.8.2 Screening Model Application

The SCREEN3 dispersion model was applied in accordance with the recommendations made in U.S. EPA’s “Guideline on Air Quality Models”5 (U.S. EPA, 1999) to assess the magnitude of the maximum ambient air impact concentrations resulting from the emissions from the CT over a range of operating loads and ambient temperatures. SCREEN3 was applied using urban dispersion parameters, default meteorology, building downwash, and terrain elevations. The model was applied for the full set of 54 default meteorological conditions, encompassing all stability classes and a range of wind speeds. The screening meteorological conditions, mixing heights, and the distances and terrain elevations used in the SCREEN3 simple terrain analysis are presented in the Air Quality Evaluation and Title V Operating Permit Modification Application in Appendix C.

Simple terrain screening receptors were located along a single radial. Receptors were placed at 10-meter (m) spacing out to 100 m, at 50-m spacing out to 500 m, at 100-m spacing out to 2 km, at 200-m spacing out to 4 km, and at 500-m spacing out to 10 km. Receptor elevations reflect the maximum terrain height found for a given distance, over all wind directions. The closest complex terrain to the Site is found approximately 8 km to the northwest, across the Hudson River, in the Palisades region of eastern New Jersey. For the simple terrain screening analysis, the stack-top elevation was assigned as the receptor elevation for all distances beyond 8 km. SCREEN3 receptor terrain height values are based on the difference between the actual terrain elevation and the stack base elevation.

The complex terrain receptors were based on the closest distance to the LCEP for which elevations ranging from stack-top to the maximum elevation found within 10 km. The closest complex terrain is found 8 km from the station, with elevations extending to 105.6 m (346 feet) above stack-base elevation at 10 km. Details of the modeling inputs are presented in the Air Quality Evaluation and Title V Operating Permit Modification Application in Appendix C

3.4.8.3 Screening Results

SCREEN3 was applied to determine the potential maximum ground-level concentrations resulting from the emissions from the proposed turbine and auxiliary boiler.

The maximum impact concentrations were predicted by the SCREEN3 model for each load condition for the proposed turbine and auxiliary boiler. In each instance, the actual 1-hour average impacts predicted for each pollutant were determined by scaling the unit emission

5 U.S. EPA, 1999. Guideline on Air Quality Models, (Revised) EPA450/12-78-027R, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC.

rate (i.e., 1 gram per second) normalized 1-hour concentrations by the maximum equipment emission rates presented in the tables. To estimate concentrations for other averaging periods, scaling factors presented in the Protocol were applied to the 1-hour averages. No operating restrictions were considered.

The maximum, modeled concentrations in simple terrain were greater than those in complex terrain for all modeled operating scenarios, for both the turbine and the auxiliary boiler.

The maximum turbine and auxiliary boiler impacts were summed to determine the potential combined impacts from the Project. The combined impacts were compared to the significant impact levels (SILs) listed on Table 3.4-15.6

The SCREEN3 model provided a conservative analysis to determine the maximum, modeled screening concentrations from the LCEP Equipment for comparison to the SILs. The

maximum, modeled screening concentrations for all parameters except CO and 3-hour SO2 were above their respective SILs for both the simple terrain and within the cavity region. Therefore, refined modeling using AERMOD was conducted to provide a less conservative analysis of the Project impacts for comparison with the SILs.

3.4.9 AERMOD Analysis

3.4.9.1 Refined Modeling with AERMOD

A refined AERMOD modeling analysis was performed to determine the maximum ambient air impacts from the LCEP Equipment for comparison with the SILs in accordance with the approved “Air Quality Screening Model Protocol” (ESS, 2010) and ”Air Quality Screening Results and Refined Modeling Protocol Supplement” (ESS, 2010) 7.

Five years of sequential meteorological data from LaGuardia Airport was used for the analysis. The 2002 to 2006 data sets were obtained from NYSDEC. The turbine and auxiliary boiler were modeled as urban sources. The default urban surface roughness of one meter was used with a population of 8 million for the City.

A polar grid was centered at the proposed HRSG stack. Radials were placed from 0 degrees to 350 degrees at increments of 10 degrees. The receptor grid was established to assure that the areas of maximum impact determined from the SCREEN3 modeling were sufficiently covered in the refined modeling.

Receptor rings were located at:

10-m increments out to 100 m

6 3 and See the NYSDEC letter of July 6, 2010 and ESS response of July 22, 2010, SO2 1 hour SIL of 7.8 ug/m NO2 1 hour SIL of 7.5 ug/m3. 7 Air Quality Screening Model Protocol, Luyster Creek Energy Project at the Astoria Generating Station, June 23, 2010 and Air Quality Screening Results And Refined Modeling Protocol Supplement Luyster Creek Energy Project at the Astoria Generating Station, August 17, 2010.

25-m increments out to 200 m

50-m increments out to 500 m

100-m increments out to 2 km

200-m increments out to 4 km

500-m increments out to 10 km

The maximum terrain elevation and hill height were assigned for each receptor through the application of AERMAP. USGS National Elevation Dataset data was input to AERMAP. The data was downloaded from the USGS website (http://sea,less.usgs.gov/index.php) and covered the area between 40.25 and 41.25 degrees north, and 73.25 and 74.55 degrees west.

AERMOD was run for the turbine at the operation conditions identified by SCREEN3 as the worst-case for ambient impacts:

Turbine Case 40 (base load on ULSD, -5ºF) for NO2 and SO2 cavity impacts

Turbine Case 41 (base load on ULSD, 59ºF) for NO2 simple terrain impacts

Turbine Case 43 (70% load on ULSD, 105ºF) for PM

Auxiliary Boiler at 100% load for all pollutants

Turbine Cases 35 and 41 were modeled to evaluate the maximum PM impact concentrations. These two conditions resulted in the maximum SCREEN3 PM concentrations under base load operation. Case 35, base load operation on ULSD at 1050F with 85% evaporation cooler efficiency, resulted in the maximum PM cavity impacts. Case 41, base load operation on ULSD at 590F, resulted in the maximum PM impacts beyond the cavity region. AERMOD was used to determine the maximum pollutant impacts under these worst-case operating scenarios.

3.4.9.2 Results of Refined Modeling with AERMOD

The maximum pollutant ground-level impact concentrations were determined using AERMOD and compared against the SILs. As shown in Table 3.4-15, each of the maximum modeled concentrations was less than its respective SIL.

Table 3.4-15: Results of AERMOD Analysis for the LCEP Equipment Modeled Concentration (µg/m3) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Maximum SIL

NO2 1-hour 6.81 6.92 6.56 7.36 6.15 7.36 7.55 Annual 0.43 0.58 0.56 0.51 0.44 0.58 1

SO2 1-hour 0.45 0.53 0.42 0.49 0.35 0.53 7.8 3-hour 0.36 0.36 0.33 0.27 0.29 0.36 25 24-hour 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.11 5 Annual 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 1

PM10 24-hour 0.94 1.21 1.09 0.98 1.08 1.06 5

PM2.5 24-hour 0.94 1.21 1.09 0.98 1.08 1.06 1.2 Annual 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.3

Note: PM10 and PM2.5 maximum based on the average of the 5 yearly maximum values

th The 1-hour NO2 NAAQS is based on the 3-year average of the 98 percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour values. To determine a project’s impacts for comparison against the standard, the maximum 1-hour impact at each receptor is first determined for each day of the year, resulting in 365 concentrations (or 366 in a leap year). The 98th percentile value is then the 8th highest of these concentrations.

At the present time, AERMOD output can be used to determine the overall 8th highest modeled concentration at each receptor. However, the reported 8th highest values do not take the time period into account. Standard AERMOD output and post-processors do not directly handle the 8th highest of the daily maximum 1-hour values. AERMOD output options can be used to generate the information needed to properly process the values.

U.S. EPA has recently issued guidance regarding AERMOD application for the 1-hour NO2 standard (U.S. EPA, 2010). The guidance indicates that AERMOD should be applied with the POSTFILE option for each individual year of meteorological data, creating a concentration file containing modeled values for each receptor location and modeled hour. This file can then be read to determine the maximum 1-hour value at each receptor location and modeled day. The 8th highest modeled concentration is averaged at each receptor location over the 5-year modeling period. The highest of these 5-year averages should be added to regional background to determine a total concentration for comparison to the 1-hour NAAQS.

The BEEST8 NO2POST program was applied to determine the maximum 5-year 98th 3 percentile average NO2 concentration. The maximum value was 7.36 µg/m . This value is less than the 1-hour SIL.

The modeled turbine pollutant ground-level concentrations were added to regional background values to determine the total predicted impact concentrations. These values

8 AERMOD software for BEE Line Software.

were then compared to the NAAQS. Table 3.4-16 presents the overall AERMOD results compared to the NAAQS.

Table 3.4-16: Results of AERMOD Analysis for LCEP Equipment Compared to NAAQS Modeled Concentration Maximum Background Total NAAQS

NO2 1-hour 7.36 132.2 139.56 188.7 Annual 0.58 45.3 45.88 100

CO2 1-hour* 157.64 3444 3601.64* 40000 8-hour* 110.35 2667 2777.35* 10000

SO2 1-hour 0.53 Not available 0.53 195 3-hour 0.36 101 101.36 1300 24-hour 0.11 62.4 62.51 365 Annual 0.01 18 18.01 80

PM10 24-hour 1.06 74 75.21 150

PM2.5 24-hour 1.06 32.1 33.31 35 Annual 0.09 11.6 11.69 15 Note: * Values based on SCREEN3 analysis.

3.4.9.3 Elevated Receptor Evaluation

AGC also performed an evaluation of elevated receptors within a minimum radius of 2 km from Site utilizing the same set of receptors recently accepted by NYSDEC in the NRG Astoria Repowering Project application. These receptors were obtained from NYSDEC and are presented in Appendix C.

AERMOD was applied to determine the maximum impacts from the proposed turbine and auxiliary boiler. Each of the screening cases was modeled using a 1 gram per second emission rate. The maximum turbine and auxiliary boiler concentrations over the entire elevated receptor grid were summed, regardless of the time or location of the impact. The results indicated all modeled impacts were less than their respective SILs and are presented in Table 3.4-17.

Table 3.4-17: Elevated Receptor Modeling Results Maximum Concentrations (µg/m3) Pollutant Averaging Period Combined Cycle Unit Auxiliary Boiler Total SILs

NO2 1-hour 5.75 1.55 7.30 7.55 Annual 0.08 0.03 0.12 1

SO2 1-hour 2.76 1.98 4.74 2000 8-hour 1.79 0.93 2.72 500 1-hour 0.41 0.03 0.44 7.8 3-hour 0.34 0.02 0.36 25

PM10 24-hour 0.14 0.01 0.14 5

PM2.5 24-hour 1.39 0.06 1.45 2 Annual 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.3

3.4.9.4 Air Toxics Evaluation

AGC evaluated air toxics in comparison to the NYSDEC short-term and annual guideline concentrations (SGC/AGC).9 AERMOD was applied using the same procedures and inputs as used for the NAAQS compliance modeling. Both ground level and elevated receptors (flagpole) were evaluated and ground level receptors were found to be the controlling values. Sources were modeled at 1 gram per second, with the maximum values multiplied by the actual pollutant emission rates for comparison to their corresponding short-term and annual guideline concentration values. Base load operations were evaluated at the three temperature conditions for natural gas and ULSD firing. The maximum modeled air toxics ambient air impacts were below each of the applicable standards and are shown in Table 6.4.4.1 of the Air Quality Evaluation and Title V Operating Permit Modification Application in Appendix C.

3.4.9.5 Start Up Evaluation

AGC performed an evaluation of ambient air impacts during startups for comparison to the short-term NAAQS. AERMOD was applied using the same procedures and inputs as used for the turbine compliance modeling for both the ground-level and elevated receptor grids. A cold startup takes 52 minutes to achieve 65% of maximum load. The potential emissions from the CT during a 52-minute startup event are as follows:

130 lb NOX

434 lb CO

2.9 lb SO2

9 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources, DAR-1, September 10, 2007.

7.4 lb PM

Modeling Case 15 is turbine operation firing ULSD at 59ºF and 60% load. Since a cold startup lasts for 52 minutes, Case 15 emissions were used for the remaining 8 minutes in the hour. The Case 15 CT emission rates are as follows:

13 lb/hr (1.73 lbs for 8 minutes) NOX

8.1 lb/hr (1.08 lbs for 8 minutes) CO

1.1 lb/hr (0.15 lbs for 8 minutes) SO2

8 lb/hr (1.07 lbs for 8 minutes) PM

The startup and prorated Case 15 emissions were summed to obtain an hourly emission rate for input to AERMOD. Similarly, exit velocity and temperature were based on the pro-rated startup and Case 15 parameters, with the following assumptions:

Startup exit velocity increased linearly from 0 to 34 feet per second (Case 15 velocity) over the 52 minute event.

Startup temperature increased from ambient (59ºF) to 162ºF (Case 15 temperature) over the 52 minute event.

These assumptions resulted in a modeled exit velocity of 19.3 feet per second (5.89 meters per second) and an exhaust temperature of 117.4ºF (320.6K).

The startup case was modeled at 1 gram per second, with the maximum modeled impact concentrations multiplied by the actual pollutant emission rates for comparison to the SILs or NAAQS as appropriate. Since the auxiliary boiler may be operating during startup periods, it was also included in the startup modeling analysis.

The maximum short-term modeled startup concentrations are presented in Table 3.4-19. The maximum modeled impacts from the turbine during startup were added to the maximum modeled impacts from the auxiliary boiler to determine the total impact concentrations. This methodology results in a conservative estimate of the potential impacts, as the maxima were added without regard to time period or location. As shown in the table, the maximum total startup impact concentrations were less than their respective SILs for all averaging periods 10 and pollutants except for 1-hour NO2 .

The short-term start-up concentrations are presented in Table 3.4-18 for comparison to the NAAQS. The turbine start-up impacts were added to the maximum impacts from the auxiliary boiler. This results in a conservative estimate of the potential impacts as the maxima were added without regard to time period or location. As shown in the table, when regional

10 3 A background concentration of 132.2 µg/m was used for the 1-hour background concentration for NO2. This is the same background used in the analysis for the NRG Astoria Turbines Repowering Application.

background is added to the start-up concentrations, the total concentrations are less than the NAAQS for all averaging periods and pollutants.

Table 3.4-18: Modeled Start-up Concentrations Source Combined Cycle Unit Auxiliary Boiler Load Start-up 100% 80% 60% Emissions (grams per second)

NOX 16.6 0.10962 0.087696 0.065772 CO 54.82 0.13986 0.111888 0.083916

SO2 0.3843 0.00189 0.001512 0.001134

PM10 1.067 0.018144 0.014515 0.010886

PM2.5 1.067 0.018144 0.014515 0.010886 Maximum Concentration @ 1 gram per second 1-hour Max 3.57071 14.13405 16.26366 18.24682 H2H 3.22658 H4H 3.03114 H8H 2.97321 3-hour Max 2.78405 12.0689 12.68602 14.64131 H2H 2.53242 8-hour Max 2.43895 6.65723 7.00802 7.44429 H2H 2.34628 24-hour Max 1.42883 3.18414 3.39716 3.62223 H2H 0.97111 H8H 0.69135 Modeled Concentration

NO2 1-hour Max 59.2738 1.5494 1.4263 1.2001 H8H 49.3553 1.5494 1.4263 1.2001 CO 1-hour Max 195.7463 1.9768 1.8197 1.5312 H2H 176.8811 1.9768 1.8197 1.5312 8-hour Max 133.7032 0.9311 0.7841 0.6247 H2H 128.6231 0.9311 0.7841 0.6247

SO2 1-hour Max 1.3722 0.0267 0.0246 0.0207 H4H 1.1649 0.0267 0.0246 0.0207 3-hour Max 1.0699 0.0228 0.0192 0.0166 H2H 0.9732 0.0228 0.0192 0.0166 24-hour Max 0.5491 0.0060 0.0051 0.0041 H2H 0.3732 0.0060 0.0051 0.0041

PM10 24-hour Max 1.5246 0.0578 0.0493 0.0394 H2H 1.0362 0.0578 0.0493 0.0394

PM2.5 24-hour Max 1.5246 0.0578 0.0493 0.0394 H4H 0.73767 0.0578 0.0493 0.0394 Maximum Modeled Concentration (µg/m3) Averaging Combined Auxiliary Pollutant Total SIL Background Total NAAQS Period Cycle Unit Boiler

Source Combined Cycle Unit Auxiliary Boiler Load Start-up 100% 80% 60%

NO2 1-hour Max 59.27 1.55 60.82 7.55 H8H 49.36 1.55 50.90 132.2 183.10 188.7 CO 1-hour Max 195.75 1.98 197.72 2000 H2H 176.88 1.98 178.86 3444 3622.86 40000 8-hour Max 133.70 0.93 134.63500 H2H 128.62 0.93 129.55 2667 2796.55 10000

SO2 1-hour Max 1.37 0.03 1.40 7.8 H4H 1.16 0.03 1.19 0 1.19 195 3-hour Max 1.07 0.02 1.09 25 H2H 0.97 0.02 1.00 101 102.00 1300 24-hour Max 0.55 0.01 0.56 5 H2H 0.37 0.01 0.38 62.4 62.78 365

PM10 24-hour Max 1.52 0.06 1.58 5 H2H 1.04 0.06 1.09 74 75.09 150

PM2.5 24-hour Max 1.52 0.06 1.58 2 H4H 0.74 0.06 0.80 32.1 32.90 35

3.4.10 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

New York State has implemented RGGI, which will reduce GHG emissions from power plants. RGGI created a regulatory structure for incentives and penalties designed to reduce carbon emissions statewide. The agreement established a market-based “cap-and-trade” auction system that requires power plants to obtain allowances to cover the amount of their carbon emissions.

The potential emissions of CO2 from the LCEP Equipment will be lower per MW-hour than other currently installed peaking facilities because of the turbine’s high efficiency combustion

technology. Based on the LCEP emission rate of 313,000 lbs/hr CO2 at 410 MW and a typical

similar capacity gas fired steam generating unit with an emission rate of 120 lbs CO2/MMBtu with

a 10,000 Btu/kwhr heat rate, the gas fired steam generating unit would have CO2 emissions of

approximately 1,200 lbs CO2/MW-hour where the LCEP emission rate at full load on natural gas

would be approximately 763 lbs CO2/MW-hour. There are no add-on controls currently available

for CO2 emissions from combustion turbines. The LCEP Equipment emissions of CO2 converted to million metric tons of carbon equivalent are shown in Table 3.4-19. In addition, the LCEP

Equipment CO2 emissions are compared to the most current national and state CO2 emission levels available.

Table 3.4-19: LCEP CO2 Emission Levels Compared to Global, National, and State Emission Levels (in Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent)

LCEP National CO2 Emissions New York CO2 Emissions 0.36 1,630.41 54.92 Notes:

Million metric tons of carbon equivalent = (CO2 tons*(2,000/2,204.6))/1,000,000 * [Global Warming Potential (CO2 = 1.0)] * [12/44 (ratio of the weight of Carbon to CO2)]. 1. National data from 2007 (U.S. EPA, 2007). 2. State data from 2007 (U.S. EPA, 2007).

Calculated conservatively, and as indicated on Table 3.4-19, the SiemensCT firing ULSD and natural gas and the auxiliary boiler firing natural gas will emit a maximum of approximately 0.36 million metric tons of carbon equivalent per year. This value is based on the maximum permitted

emissions for the LCEP Equipment. Since the actual CO2 emissions decrease resulting from of the shutdown/retirement of existing AGS Unit 2 are small compared to the LCEP Equipment potential

to emit, the CO2 emissions decreases minimally. Thus, the net increase of CO2 emissions remains essentially the same, 0.36 million metric tons of carbon equivalent. Therefore the LCEP will

contribute minimally to statewide CO2 levels (0.7%) and virtually imperceptible levels to national

CO2 levels. In addition, though not easily quantifiable, it is highly likely that because the SiemensCT in a combined cycle application is the most efficient unit commercially available, it will

displace other less efficient Existing AGS Units and result in further reductions in CO2 emissions.

The RGGI states have negotiated a regional CO2 budget of approximately 188 million tons for the

years 2009 through 2014, and have apportioned it among themselves. New York’s initial CO2 budget is approximately 64.3 million tons (before the mandated 10% reduction is made).

The responsibility for implementing RGGI will be shared by three departments of New York State government: the Department of Public Service, the NYSDEC and the New York Energy Research and Development Authority. NYSDEC and the New York Energy Research and Development Authority were engaged in rulemaking to implement RGGI. NYSDEC has established New York's

CO2 Budget Trading Program and its share of the total regional cap through a new rule (6 NYCRR Part 242) and revisions to an existing rule (6 NYCRR Part 200, General Provisions). 6 NYCRR Part 242 establishes the cap-and-trade provisions. The New York Energy Research and Development

Authority has set up the CO2 Allowance Auction through a new rule (21 NYCRR Part 507). Part 507 establishes administrative procedures for the auction process and provides that proceeds from the sale of the allowances will fund projects and programs for energy efficiency and clean energy technology.

The first control period for fossil fuel-fired electric generators under New York’s CO2 Budget Trading Program took effect on January 1, 2009 and extends through December 31, 2011.

3.4.10.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy

The NYSDEC issued the policy “Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements” on July 15, 2009. The policy applies to the NYSDEC staff

review of an EIS when NYSDEC is the lead or involved agency under SEQRA, and energy use or GHG emissions have either been identified as significant impacts in the positive declaration, or are required to be analyzed in an EIS as a result of scoping. The Policy requires the analysis of direct and indirect emissions from both stationary and mobile sources.

The LCEP Equipment’s GHG emissions were calculated from direct and indirect stationary and non-stationary sources. A more detailed explanation of these categories is as follows:

Direct Emissions from Stationary Sources

Direct GHG emissions from stationary sources result from the combustion of fossil fuels for heat, hot water, steam generation, on-site generation of electricity, or industrial processes.

This category includes CO2 emissions from the SiemensCT and auxiliary boiler. These CO2 emissions are provided in Table 3.4-19 and in the Air Quality Evaluation and Title V Operating Permit Modification Application in Appendix C. Also, consistent with equipment and

operations of this type there may also be very small amounts of methane (CH4) in the form of fugitive emissions from the fuel supply system.

Direct Emissions from Non-stationary Sources

Direct emissions from non-stationary sources include fleet vehicles owned and operated by the project and associated with the project. Fleet vehicles include freight trucks, delivery trucks, on-site mobile equipment such as forklifts, tractors, maintenance and security vehicles and other non-stationary equipment used on-site whose operation involves combustion of carbon containing fuels. Since the emissions from non-stationary sources at the Site are small compared to the emissions from the stationary sources, this category represents an insignificant fraction of the total GHG emissions, and was therefore not quantified for this analysis.

Indirect Emissions from Stationary Sources

Indirect emissions from stationary sources include emissions generated by off-site energy plants supplying energy used on the site of the proposed project during its operation, such as the off-site production of electricity, heating, or cooling which will be used on-site. Most often this is electricity purchased through a utility. Since all of the energy associated with the LCEP will be generated on-site, this category is not applicable to the Project.

Indirect Emissions from Mobile Sources

Indirect emissions from non-stationary sources include trips generated by vehicles that are associated with the proposed project but are not owned and operated by the project. This includes trips of commuting employees, residents, suppliers/vendors, and customers/users of the project as well as the transportation of waste generated at the site. Since the emissions from mobile sources at the Site will be small compared to the emissions from the stationary

sources, this category represents an insignificant fraction of the total GHG emissions, and was therefore not quantified for this analysis.

3.4.10.2 Alternatives Analysis

The Alternatives Analysis is provided in Section 5.0.

3.4.10.3 Mitigation Measures

The LCEP has several features that provide reductions in CO2 emissions.

Use of the most efficient combustion turbine commercially available minimizes CO2 emissions.

Establishment of enforceable emissions limits on existing AGS Unit No. 4 and 5

Use of natural gas, a low carbon intensity fossil fuel.

Shutdown/retirement of existing AGS Unit 2.

Limitation on the use of fuel oil which is limited to ULSD.

Displacement of other less efficient Existing AGS Units resulting in further reductions in

CO2 emissions.

3.4.10.4 Implications of Sea Level Rise

During the development of another project by AGC, the local community expressed concerns regarding potential sea level rise and storm surge due to the impact of climate change on the Site. Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer) (U.S. EPA, 2010g).

It is generally common knowledge that the average global temperature has increased since the mid-20th century. This increase is likely to result in increased sea levels due to thermal expansion from ocean warming, the melting of mountain glaciers, and subsidence (sinking of the East Coast due to isostatic adjustments of the crust from the last Ice Age) (GISS, 2010). A recent study conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University for the U.S. Global Change Research Program looked at several impacts of climate change on the New York metropolitan area, including sea level rise. The researchers projected a rise in sea level of 11.8 to 37.5 inches in the City and 9.5 to 42.5 inches in the metropolitan region by the 2080s (GISS, 2007). Similarly, Rosenzweig and Gornitz (2005 and 2006) projected a sea level rise of 15 to 19 inches by the 2050s in the City (GISS, 2007). It is important to note that the projected life of the LCEP Equipment is approximately 30 years, which is a shorter timeframe than these estimates of the rise in sea level in the City.

Rising sea levels and warming of ocean currents may also contribute to enhanced storm surges associated with hurricanes in coastal areas. Storm surge refers to the “dome” of

ocean water propelled by the winds and low barometric pressure of a hurricane (OEM, 2010). Storm surges from hurricanes have the potential to be highly destructive and have been known to destroy large buildings and communities which reside close to coastlines.

The concerns of rising sea levels and storm surges are relevant to the Project because approximately half of the Site is located in Zone AE on Flood Insurance Map, Panel 92 of 457, Map Number 3604970092F, September 5, 2007. Zone AE areas are defined as those areas subject to inundation by the 1%-annual-chance flood event and mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply. In addition, as determined by the City Office of Emergency Management, the entire waterfront area from north of 20th Avenue, which includes the Site, is classified as Zone C. Zone C is an area that may experience storm surge flooding from a major (Category 3 and Category 4) hurricane making landfall. A major hurricane is unlikely in New York City but not impossible (City Office of Emergency Management, 2010a).

In order to mitigate potential flood damage to property in this area, critical Project components will be elevated above grade by 2 to 4 feet (see Figure 3.2-1). This configuration

will help protect the LCEP Equipment from flood events.

3.4.11 References

Alberta Government, 2006. Agriculture and Rural Development. Ammonia Emissions and Safety. Accessed September 10, 2010. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex8271

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008a. How Sulfur Dioxide Affects the Way We Live & Breathe. Accessed September 7, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008b. Final Rule for Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5). 6560- 50-P. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0062; FRL-] RIN 2060-AN86.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008c. How Carbon Monoxide Affects the Way We Live and Breathe. Accessed September 7, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/co/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008d. Ground-level Ozone. Accessed September 7, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Particulate Matter Basic Information. Accessed September 7, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/basic.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008e. EPA News Room. EPA Proposes Stronger Air Quality Standards for Lead. Accessed September 7, 2010. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/dc57b08b5acd42bc852573c90044a9c4/1397b 8428a283cc08525743c0068cbc0!OpenDocument

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010g. Climate Change. Basic Information. Accessed September 7, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2007. NASA Looks at Sea Level Rise, Hurricane Risks to New York City. Accessed September 7, 2010. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20061024/

Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2010. Climate Impacts in New York City: Sea Level Rise and Coastal Floods. Accessed September 7, 2010. http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/2002/impacts/introduction.html

New York City Office of Emergency Management, 2010. NYC Hazards: Storm Surge. Accessed September 7, 2010. http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/hazards/storms_stormsurge.shtml

New York City Office of Emergency Management, 2010a. Accessed September 7, 2010. http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/downloads/pdf/hurricane_map_english.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. State CO2 Emissions from fossil fuel combustion, 1990-2007. Accessed September 7, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/state_energyco2inv.html#ref

3.5 Historic, Cultural and Archaeological Resources

This section describes the historic uses of the Site, assesses the potential for unrecorded intact archaeological deposits and historic aboveground architectural structures to be present on the Site, and identifies previously recorded historic aboveground architectural structures and sites within a 2- mile radius of the LCEP Equipment. The 2-mile study radius was selected to be consistent with the Visual Study Area established in the DEIS Scoping Document, as described in Section 3.6.

Potential Project impacts on historic properties [i.e. cultural resources determined to meet eligibility criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)] within the Areas of Potential Effect (APEs) for physical and visual effects are assessed in Section 3.5.2. The APE for potential physical effects is considered areas of ground disturbance necessary to construct the Project, including access roads and staging locations. The APE for potential visual effects is considered to be locations within the 2-mile radial Visual Study Area with views of the Project’s structures, and is further defined below. Mitigation measures, if necessary, are addressed in Section 3.5.3.

The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation’s (NYSOPRHP) determinations of Project effects are also described in this section (for physical effects) and Section 3.6 (for visual effects); regulatory correspondence is contained in Appendix B.

3.5.1 Existing Conditions

Research to identify known and potential cultural resources that may be affected by the LCEP Equipment included review of the NYSOPRHP on-line State Preservation Historical Information Network Exchange (SPHINX) database, and available historic maps, photographs and previous available reports regarding the Site and vicinity, as cited herein, and field reconnaissance within the Visual Study Area.

3.5.1.1 Site History

The Site occupies approximately 10.1 acres of the 318-acre ConEd Complex, which has been the site of energy production activities since the late 19th century.

In 1899, the Astoria Light, Heat and Power Company acquired lands north of Winthrop Avenue (now 20th Avenue), including the Site. Construction of a manufactured gas plant began in 1903 to supply the expanding fuel (gas) needs of the New York metropolitan area across the East River and to replace existing manufactured gas plants in the more heavily populated Borough of Manhattan.

A review of a USCG nautical chart published in 1910 indicates that the Site is located on or near what was then Berrian’s Island (NOAA, 2010). The tidal flats between the island and Lawrence Point at the northeastern end of Astoria appear to have been filled between the drafting of the 1910 nautical chart and the creation of a 1918 New York City map of the Borough of Queens, which showed the area as a solid piece of land (NOAA, 2010). In the 1918 map, Astoria Light Heat and Power occupied a large parcel northeast of 20th Avenue.

In a 1947 USGS quadrangle map, a tank farm appears at the location of the Site (USGS, 1947). The Site is located within the existing FOTF, which stores approximately 8 million gallons of No. 6 oil in four underground tanks. Three aboveground tanks have been retired and are drained. A fourth aboveground tank has been removed. An aerial photograph showing Site conditions as of late 2010 is provided in Figure 3.1-1. These maps and the aerial indicate the Site has been used as a tank farm for bulk storage for at least 60 years.

3.5.1.2 Known and Potential Cultural Resources on Site

A map showing archaeologically sensitive areas within the Visual Study Area and properties listed on the State and NRHP was downloaded in 2010 from NYSOPRHP’s SPHINX database (see Figure 3.5-1).

The map identifies no historic properties listed or determined eligible for listing on the S/NRHP on the Site (NYSOPRHP SPHINX Database, 2010). Structures currently on the Site include large aboveground fuel oil tanks and several small utility buildings currently. These structures have no architectural merit or historic associations, and therefore do not appear to meet eligibility criteria for listing on the S/NRHP.

The SPHINX map indicates the Site and vicinity is within an archaeologically sensitive area (see area shaded in gray on Figure 3.5-1). The recent aerial photograph on Figure 3.1-1

shows the extensive ground disturbance that has previously occurred on the Site. Given the likely repeated episodes of ground disturbance over nearly a century, there is little potential for unrecorded intact archaeological resources to be present on the Site.

Due to the absence of known or potential historic structures and archaeological resources on the Site, a Phase 1A archaeological survey of the Site is not warranted. A letter was received from OPRHP dated October 28, 2010 indicating that OPRHP had no further archaeological concerns about the Project (see Appendix B). An assessment of visual impacts of the LCEP Equipment on aboveground historic properties in the Visual Study Area is included in Section 3.6.

3.5.1.3 Identification of Historic Aboveground Architectural Properties in the Visual Study Area

For purposes of this study and to comply with the NYSDEC Scoping Document, the Visual Study Area is considered to be the APE for visual effects to historic properties, specifically those historic aboveground architectural sites and structures from which open, unobstructed views of the visible components of the LCEP Equipment would be available from publicly accessible locations. The introduction of visual elements that alter the characteristics of a historic property that qualify it for listing on the NRHP (typically its historic setting when viewed from a public vantage point), can be considered an impact to that resource. A historic property on or eligible for inclusion on the S/NRHP is also considered an Aesthetic Resource of Statewide Significance, which is further addressed in Section 3.6.

3.5.1.4 Inventory of Historic Properties Eligible for or Listed on the S/NRHP

Seventeen aboveground historic sites and two historic districts listed on the NRHP and SPHINX databases were identified within the two-mile radial Visual Study Area. These are listed on Table 3.5-1, with distances and direction to the Site; approximate locations are shown on Figure 3.5-2. Of the identified resources, both the historic districts and eight individual properties are listed on the S/NRHP. Two properties (the Astoria Powerhouse on the ConEd Complex and St. Michael’s Cemetery, both in Astoria) have been determined eligible for listing on the S/NRHP. Seven properties were listed as unevaluated on the SPHINX database, and therefore can be considered potentially eligible for listing on the S/NRHP. Photographs of the historic resources and views toward the Site from publicly accessible street level locations at or near the resources are provided in Figure 3.5-3.

Table 3.5-1: Historic Aboveground Architectural Properties/Aesthetic Resources of Statewide Significance in the Visual Study Area

Photo Distance/Direction No. on Historic Potential ID No. Name Address From Resource to Fig. 3.5- Status Visibility Site (miles) 3 295 St Ann’s St. Ann’s Church Avenue 1-2 L 90NR00036 1.6 mile Southeast No Complex New York, Bronx County, New York

454-464 E.148th Hertlein and Street 3 L 00NR01719 Schlatter Silk 1.9 miles Southeast No Bronx, Bronx Trimmings Factory County, New York

Roughly bounded by Beck Street, Longwood, Leggett Longwood Historic 4 L:HD 90NR00060 and Prospect 1.95 miles South No District Avenues New York, Bronx County, New York

An irregular pattern along Alexander Mott Haven Historic Avenue and E.140th 5 L:HD 90NR00035 2.0 miles Southeast No District Street New York, Bronx County, New York

20th Ave 31st Street Astoria Powerhouse 6 I USN08101.006584 Astoria, Queens 0.4 miles Southeast -- c. 1905 County, New York

Steinway Place at Steinway Piano Co 19th Avenue 7 U USN08101.000056 0.45 miles North No and Housing Astoria, Queens County, New York

18-22 41st Street 8-9 L 90NR01587 Steinway House New York, Queens 0.5 miles Northwest No County, New York

20-29 38th Street 10-11 U USN08101.000052 Aetna Marble Co. Astoria, Queens 0.7 miles South No County New York

78-03 19th Road Lent Homestead 12-13 L 90NR01565 New York, Queens 1.0 mile Northwest No and Cemetery County, New York

43-02 Ditmars Boulevard 14-15 U USN08101.009582 Private Residence 1.05 miles North No Astoria, Queens County, New York

Between Manhattan 16 U USN08101.000043 Hell Gate Bridge and Queens, New 1.05 miles Northeast Limited York

LaGuardia Airport 17-18 L 90NR01580 Marine Air Terminal New York, Queens 1.15 miles Northwest Limited County, New York

Photo Distance/Direction No. on Historic Potential ID No. Name Address From Resource to Fig. 3.5- Status Visibility Site (miles) 3 29-19 24th Avenue Bohemian Hall and 19 L 00NR01724 Astoria, Queens 1.25 miles Northeast No Park County, New York

72-02 Astoria St. Michael’s Boulevard 20-21 I USN08101.011176 1.3 miles North No Cemetery Astoria, Queens County, New York

Between Manhattan Triborough/RFK 22 U USN08101.000051 and Queens, New 1.35 miles Northeast Limited Bridge York

14-22 27th Avenue St. George’s 23-24 L USN08101.009752 Astoria, Queens 1.7 miles Northeast No Episcopal Church County, New York

14-01 Astoria Queens Public Boulevard 25 U USN80101.007258 Library, Astoria 1.7 miles Northeast No Astoria, Queens Branch County, New York

32-05 Newtown Multi-Story Avenue 26 U USN08101.011398 1.7 miles Northeast No Residence New York, Queens County, New York

31-18 37th Street Trinity Lutheran 27-28 L 08NR05837 Astoria, Queens 1.95 miles Northeast No Church County, New York Key: L= Listed on the S/NRHP HD= Historic District I= Eligible for inclusion on the S/NRHP U= Unevaluated on the SPHINX database, and therefore potentially eligible

3.5.1.5 Astoria Powerhouse

In its letter dated April 1, 2010, the NYSOPRHP requested that a visual assessment of the Project be conducted from the Astoria Powerhouse, along the East River on the ConEd Complex. The address of the NRHP-eligible Powerhouse provided by NYSOPRHP in an attachment to their correspondence was 20th Avenue and 31st Street. This specific address in Astoria pertains to the entrance to the overall 318-acre ConEd Complex; field reconnaissance found no historic buildings located at that street address.

The location of the historic Powerhouse was confirmed by Ms. Virginia Bartos of NYSOPRHP on February 14, 2011 to correspond to the location shown on Figure 3.5-4, which is approximately 2,000 feet northwest of the Site on another property. The Powerhouse was located to the north of a large electric generating facility structure along the East River, containing the Existing AGS Units at the south end and the New York Power Authority (NYPA) Poletti Power Project to the north end. Based on a review of publicly available aerial photography and area reconnaissance, the Powerhouse appears to have been demolished. This information was provided to NYSOPRHP by letter dated March 3, 2011 (see Appendix B).

Two aerial views of the Powerhouse site, each accessed in 2010 from different websites, are provided on Figure 3.5-5. The top aerial shows the Powerhouse structure and a blue aboveground tank. The bottom photograph shows the footprint of what appears to have been the Powerhouse structure and a circular footprint at the location of the former blue tank. A small pile of demolition debris appears to be covered by a blue tarp in the lower portion of the photograph. This information was provided to NYSOPRHP at its request (see correspondence dated March 3, 2011 in Appendix B). It should be noted that this structure was not part of the AGS facility nor in AGC’s control. NYSOPRHP acknowledged the demolition of the Astoria Powerhouse and the fact that the structure was not located on AGC property in correspondence dated April 1, 2011 (see Appendix B).

3.5.1.6 Other Historic Properties of Local Significance

A number of New York City Landmarks were identified in the Visual Study Area and are listed in Table 3.5-2; locations are provided in Figure 3.5-6. Some have been designated historic at the State and National levels and were listed in Table 3.5-2.

Table 3.5-2: New York City Landmarks/Aesthetic Resources of Local Significance in the Visual Study Area Distance/Direction Potential Name of Resource from Resource to Project (miles) Visibility New York City Landmarks Steinway House 0.5 miles Northwest No Lawrence Family Graveyard 0.67 miles Northeast No Lent Homestead and Cemetery 1.0 miles Northwest No Marine Air Terminal at LaGuardia Airport 1.15 miles Northwest Limited Astoria Park Pool and Play Center (Within Astoria 1.26 miles Northeast No Park) Bronx Grit Chamber 1.3 miles Southeast No Bertine Block Historic District 1.7 miles Southeast No Thomas Jefferson Play Center (Within Jefferson 1.77 miles East No Park) Public School 27 1.83 miles Southeast No Source: New York City Landmarks Commission website at http://gis.nyc.gov/doitt/nycitymap/ accessed January 25, 2011

3.5.2 Potential Impacts

The APE for physical disturbance to potential cultural resources is considered the construction footprint within the Site. The APE for visual effects is the 2-radial-mile visual study area, as designated in the DEIS Scoping Document.

There are no known archaeological resources or historic sites or structures on the Site, which is and has been used as a fuel oil storage tank farm for over 60 years. Given the extensive previous ground disturbance and the aboveground tanks now on the Site, there is little potential for unrecorded historically significant intact archaeological resources to be on the Site. The NYSOPRHP stated it has no further archaeological concerns about the Project in its letter dated October 8, 2010 (see Appendix B).

There are no structures listed or determined eligible for listing on the S/NRHP on the Site. The tanks and associated structures on the Site do not meet the eligibility criteria for the S/NRHP. Construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment will not physically affect any cultural, historic or archaeological resources within the APE for physical disturbance.

The assessment of visual impacts to the historic aboveground architectural structures identified within the Visual Study Area is further addressed in Section 3.6. The NYSOPRHP found in its letter dated April 1, 2011 that the Project as proposed will not visually impact historic aboveground architectural properties within the 2-mile visual study area, and will have No Adverse Impact upon historic resources (see Appendix B).

3.5.3 Proposed Mitigation

The new LCEP Equipment will be consistent in appearance and scale with existing and similar industrial and energy-related structures in the immediate vicinity. The construction and operation of the Project will not result in any adverse physical impacts to significant cultural resources or historical properties. The NYSOPRHP determined the Project will have No Adverse Impact upon historic resources (see Appendix B). No mitigation measures are warranted.

3.5.4 References

Library of Congress Cities and Towns Historic Maps – 1918 Map of the Borough of Queens, Press Publishing Co., c.1918. Library of Congress Geography and Map Division Washington, D.C. Accessed on July 16 and 26, 2010. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query

New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission Landmarks Historic Districts Maps. Accessed July 19, 2010. http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/maps/historic_district.shtml

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Archaeological and Historic Mapper. Accessed on July 15, 2010. http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/nr/main.asp

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, State Preservation Historical Information Network Exchange (SPHINX) database. Accessed several times between July 16 and July 26, 2010. http://nysparks.state.ny.us/shpo/online-tools/

USGS. 1947. Quadrangle map showing western Queens County, New York.

3.6 Aesthetic/Visual Resources

This section describes the methodology and results of the visual analysis of the LCEP Equipment. The analysis was conducted to comply with the DEIS Scoping Document and NYSDEC Policy DEP-00-2 dated July 31, 2000 entitled Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts (the NYSDEC Visual Policy). The DEIS Scoping Document established an area of 2 radial miles, centered on the Site (Visual Study Area).

The visual analysis included the following:

Descriptions of the existing setting within the Visual Study Area and locally around the Site.

Identification of aesthetic resources of statewide and local significance in the Visual Study Area.

Descriptions and preliminary dimensions of the proposed major visible elements of the LCEP Equipment.

Field confirmation and photographic documentation of the identified aesthetic resources, and available views (or lack of views) toward the LCEP Equipment from publicly accessible areas at or near the aesthetic resources (termed viewpoints).

Line-of-sight profiles (where needed) to rule in/rule out potential visibility of the LCEP Equipment.

Computerized visual simulations of how the LCEP Equipment would appear at or near those resources where views of at least the tallest elements of the LCEP Equipment are expected to be available.

Assessment of potential visual impacts due to construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment on the identified aesthetic resources of statewide and local significance in the Visual Study Area.

The need for mitigation measures, if applicable.

These tasks and findings are presented in the sections below. Correspondence with NYSOPRHP regarding potential visual effects of the Project on historic aboveground architectural structures is included in Appendix B. In brief, the NYSOPRHP determined in its letter dated April 1, 2011 that the Project as proposed will not visually impact historic aboveground architectural properties within the 2- mile visual study area, and will have No Adverse Impact upon historic resources (see Appendix B).

3.6.1 Existing Conditions

This section describes the landscape settings and visual character within the Visual Study Area and identifies aesthetic resources of statewide and local significance.

3.6.1.1 Landscape Settings

Land uses throughout the highly urbanized Visual Study Area are diverse and characteristic of the New York City metropolitan area. The Visual Study Area contains heavy industrial and manufacturing facilities, multi-modal urban transportation facilities, public and private

institutions, urban park and recreation facilities, rivers and estuaries, and mixed use residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. Aerial photographs of the Site and vicinity are provided in Figures 3.1-1 and 3.5-4.

The Site is located northeast of 20th Avenue in an area zoned as an M3-1 manufacturing district, at the northwest tip of the Astoria section of Queens on western Long Island. The M3-1 district contains a diverse mix of industrial and manufacturing uses. The Site is within the northeastern part of the ConEd Complex, which has generated and supplied electricity to the New York City metropolitan area for over a century, and includes multiple electric generating facilities, substations, fuel oil storage and distribution terminals, and other energy associated facilities. The ConEd Complex is bounded by the East River on the west and north. The Site lies approximately 275 feet south of the East River and northwest of Luyster Creek, a tidal estuary discharging into the East River. The Site is connected to the Existing AGS Units by easements and existing utilities.

To the west of the ConEd Complex and across the East River in the Borough of Manhattan is Randall’s and Wards Islands, which lie within the Visual Study Area. These islands contain New York City park lands, portions of the RFK Bridge (formerly known as the Triborough Bridge), a municipal wastewater treatment plant and the Manhattan Psychiatric Center. Views of the ConEd Complex are available from these parks near the East River, but are quickly limited by intervening structures and buildings once one moves away from the River.

The Port Morris area of the South Bronx is located in the northwest portion of the Visual Study Area. This area includes rail yards and various industrial and manufacturing facilities. A residential area is located north of the elevated transportation corridors (Routes I-87, I-895 and I-278) that traverse this portion of the Visual Study Area, and serve to screen distant views toward the ConEd Complex.

North and South Brothers Islands are located in the East River to the north of the Site; these islands, now owned by the Bronx, contain the ruins of former hospitals and residences and are now largely unused and colonized by birds (PlaNYC, 2010). To the northeast of the Site across the East River is Rikers Island, which contains the Rikers Island Prison Complex. The complex serves as New York City’s main jail, and as of 2009 housed approximately 13,000 prisoners in 10 detention facilities (New York Times, 2009). To the east and southeast of the Site across Luyster Creek in Astoria are the Bowery Bay Water Pollution Control Plant, LaGuardia Airport, and other industrial and commercial facilities. While views of the ConEd Complex are available across the East River from North and South Brothers and Rikers Islands, onshore views toward the Site are limited by intervening structures and in some cases by mature vegetation and street trees.

The residential neighborhoods of Astoria begin south of 20th Avenue (in R4 and R5 zoning districts), and are interspersed with well-defined commercial corridors and nodes (C1-2 and C2-2 zoning districts). This residential area is a minimum of 0.5 miles south of the Site. Residences are generally two to four stories tall and include apartments, row houses, multi-

family and single family housing. These buildings vary in age and architectural style, but most are brick or masonry structures that include small yards and street-side parking. Views of the ConEd Complex from street level in these areas are quickly blocked by dense intervening structures. Views along 20th Avenue, which runs along the south side of the ConEd Complex and contains painted bike lanes on either side of the avenue are partially screened by a 7-foot high poled fence along the north side of the sidewalk adjacent to 20th Avenue.

Commercial areas within the Astoria neighborhoods occur along 31st Street between Astoria Boulevard and 21st Avenue. Secondary commercial areas are located along Ditmars Boulevard between 28th Street and 41st Street and along several parts of 21st Avenue. These areas are characterized by a mix of shops, restaurants and offices on the ground floor of the buildings that line the streets. No views of the ConEd Complex were found from street level in these areas.

Southwest of the ConEd Complex and just west of the residential neighborhoods is Astoria Park, along the East River. The park contains mature vegetation, with the grade rising to the west side, which is then bordered by multi-story buildings. Only limited views of the southwestern-most part of the ConEd Complex are available from Astoria Park.

The process to identify specific resources within the Visual Study Area in order to assess visual impacts is described below.

3.6.1.2 Inventory of Aesthetic Resources of Statewide Significance

The NYSDEC Visual Policy calls for identification of aesthetic resources which are included in any of the 15 designated categories of resources of statewide significance within a project’s visual study area. As indicated on Table 3.6-1, the only category of aesthetic resources of statewide significance in the NYSDEC Visual Policy within the Visual Study Area is aboveground historic architectural structures listed or eligible for listing on the S/NRHP.

Table 3.6-1: Categories of Aesthetic Resources of Statewide Significance in Visual Study Area Within NYSDEC Policy NYSDEC Categories of Aesthetic Resources of Statewide Visual Category No. Significance Study Area A property on or eligible for inclusion on the National or State 1 Yes Register of Historic Places 2 State Parks No 3 Urban Cultural Parks No 4 State Forest Preserve No 5 National Wildlife Refuge No 6 National Natural Landmarks No

Within NYSDEC Policy NYSDEC Categories of Aesthetic Resources of Statewide Visual Category No. Significance Study Area The National Park System - Recreation Areas, Seashores, 7 No Forests Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic, or 8 No Recreational A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated or eligible for 9 No designation as scenic 10 Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance No A State or Federally Designated Trail, or one proposed for 11 No Designation 12 Adirondack Park Scenic Vistas No 13 State Nature and Historic Preserve Areas No 14 Palisades Park No Bond Act Properties purchased under Exceptional Scenic Beauty 15 No or Open Space category Source: The NYSDEC Policy DEP-00-2, Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts, 2000.

Seventeen aboveground historic properties and two historic districts were identified in Section 3.5 and on Table 3.5-1 in the Visual Study Area; their locations are shown on Figure 3.5-2. Information pertaining to assessment of visual impacts on these aboveground historic properties was provided to NYSOPRHP by letter dated March 3, 2011 (see Appendix B). As described in Sections 3.6 and 3.6.3, the NYSOPRHP responded by letter dated April 1, 2011 and determined that the Project as proposed will not visually impact historic aboveground architectural properties within the 2-mile visual study area, and will have No Adverse Impact upon historic resources (see Appendix B).

There are no National Parks, National Seashores, National Recreation Areas, State Parks, or Urban Cultural Parks within the Visual Study Area (NYSOPRHP, 2010). The Visual Study Area does, however, include several City parks, playgrounds and sitting areas. These recreation facilities, considered as aesthetic resources of local significance, are described in Section 3.6.1.3.

There are no state-designated scenic overlooks or visual corridors, no designated Scenic or Recreational Rivers in the Visual Study Area, (as per the State Wild, Scenic and Recreational River legislation) and no Bond Act Properties purchased under the Exceptional Scenic Beauty or Open Space category. No portions of the Site or Visual Study Area are located within or are visible from any designated Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance.

3.6.1.3 Inventory of Aesthetic Resources of Local Significance

Resources that may be considered visually sensitive at the municipal and local levels were also identified as part of the visual study. This inventory was compiled from the following sources:

New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission

City Department of Parks & Recreations

Queens East River and North Shore Greenway Master Plan

Google Earth

New York City Landmarks within the Visual Study Area were listed on Table 3.5-2. Table 3.6- 2 lists other local resources near the Site considered visually sensitive, such as parks, bike paths and trails within the Visual Study Area. Locations of these resources are shown on Figure 3.5-6.

Table 3.6-2: Recreational Resources/Aesthetic Resources of Local Significance in the Visual Study Area Distance/Direction Potential Name of Resource from Resource to Site (miles) Visibility Recreational Resources Proposed20th Avenue Bikeway* 0.53 miles Northeast Limited Ralph DeMarco Park 0.65 miles Northeast Limited Randall’s Island/Wards Island Park 0.75 miles East Limited Astoria Park and Pool 0.9 miles Northeast No Barretto Point Park 1.35 miles Southwest Yes Con-Ed Ball Fields 0.5 miles Southeast Limited St. Mary’s Park 1.5 miles Southeast No Jefferson Park and Play Center 1.6 miles East No Sources: City Department of Parks & Recreation Website/New York State Department of Transportation Scenic Byways Maps/Google Earth; *Proposed as of 2006 Queens East River and North Shore Greenway Master Plan.

There are no City-designated scenic overlooks, designated visual corridors, or Special Scenic View Districts within the Visual Study Area, per the City’s Zoning Resolution. Adjacent waterfront areas are included in Reaches 7 and 11, as designated by the DCP. Neither of these reaches includes areas designated by the City as Special Natural Waterfront Areas (DCP, The New Waterfront Revitalization Program, September 2002).

Those recreational resources where at least partially screened potential views of the Project are expected are described below.

Randall’s/ Wards Island Park

The largest park within the Visual Study Area is Randall’s/Wards Island Park, which is located on an island in the East River at the intersection of the RFK Bridge between East Harlem, the South Bronx and Astoria. The Wards Island Pollution Control Plant, the FDNY Training Academy, and the elevated Hell Gate Line viaduct separate the Randall’s Island and Wards Island sections of the park. Randall’s/Wards Island includes 395 acres of mapped parkland with amenities including: 23 baseball/softball fields, 20 tennis courts, several soccer/football fields, a running track, driving range, miniature golf course and a 4.5 mile bike path. The park also includes benches and lawn areas for passive recreational activities. The park is home to Downing Stadium, which is a venue for concerts and sporting events.

Randall’s/Wards Island Park is characterized by relatively level topography and widely spaced planted trees. The Manhattan skyline, Hell Gate Bridge and RFK Bridge are focal points from the Wards Island section of the park. The Existing AGS Units, the NYPA Charles Poletti Project, and the NYPA 500 MW Combined Cycle Plant are dominant visual elements in views from the eastern section of the Randall’s Island portion of the park and are expected to at least partially screen the more distant views of the Site, which lies approximately 0.75 miles east of the park. The proposed NRG Astoria 1,000 MW facility just south of the LCEP Equipment will also be a major visual element that may partially screen views.

Ralph DeMarco Park

Ralph DeMarco Park is a 5-acre waterfront park that lies between Shore Boulevard and the East River, approximately 0.65 miles from the Site. It extends from 20th Avenue south to Astoria Park. Ralph DeMarco Park includes walking paths, benches, and lawn areas with planted trees. It is used primarily for passive recreational activities including walking, picnicking, sun bathing and sitting, although jogging and bicycling are also popular activities. Open views are focused toward the East River, Randall’s/Wards Island to the west, the Manhattan skyline to the southwest and the nearby bridges spanning the East River. Portions of the existing AGS Facility are clearly visible from most areas of the park and it is expected to at least partially screen views of the new LCEP Equipment.

Barretto Point Park (Bronx)

This 11-acre riverfront park located at the end of Tiffany Street in the Bronx is bordered to the north by moderate industry and manufacturing. The western edge of the park provides access to a long fishing pier named Tiffany Pier, and the eastern edge contains a small beach allowing access for kayaks and canoes to the East River. Recreational activities such as walking, picnicking, basketball and volleyball are popular here. There is also a small amphitheater, set into the slope facing the river. The most notable feature of this park is its floating pool, which opened in 2008. The floating pool is housed in a converted barge

attached to the shore of Barretto Point Park by walkways. When it opened it was haled as a major installation increasing much needed recreational space without acquiring any new land.

Barretto Point Park offers views of the Manhattan skyline and the East River. Looking southwest from the park, visitors will be able to see the LCEP Equipment at a distance of approximately 1.35 miles. Given the already heavily industrialized nature of the landscape in this area and the distance to the Site, the visual impact from the installation of the LCEP Equipment is expected to be minimal.

Proposed 20th Avenue Bikeway

According to the 2006 Queens East River and North Shore Greenway Master Plan (Greenway Master Plan), a multi-use lane is proposed to run along, or parallel to, the entire shoreline of Queens, allowing greater public waterfront access. This plan envisions a multi-use lane of varying configurations connecting the neighborhoods of Long Island City, Hunters Point, Ravenswood, and Astoria in western Queens with Steinway, Jackson Heights and East Elmhurst in northern Queens as well as four parks on the East River shoreline. Currently, part of 20th Avenue in either direction has been designated as an on-street bike lane (part of the existing road delineated by pavement markings) which runs the entire length of the Avenue. The bike lanes clearly terminate at the southeastern and northwestern-most ends of this road and do not currently connect to any other on-street bike lanes, bike paths or trails.

Visibility of the LCEP Equipment will be sporadic along 20th Avenue in either direction. There will be no visibility from the southeastern half of the roadway, as views there are blocked by trees and two-story commercial buildings. Where the street trees are less mature and spaced farther apart, and where 20th Avenue abuts playing fields and large paved areas, views of the LCEP Equipment will be possible, though visual impacts will be consistent with the existing industrial structures visible from this roadway. A seven-foot-high poled fence runs along the north side of the 20th Avenue sidewalk that abuts the bike lane, and serves to further obscure views of the ConEd Complex beyond the fence when seen from the bike lanes.

ConEd Ball Fields

The ConEd Ball Fields are located at 20th Avenue and 35th Street in Astoria, and include approximately 4.5 acres of land with soccer and baseball fields that are used heavily during the spring, summer and autumn seasons. Although these fields are bordered by vegetation along the northern edge, nearby industrial activities are visible in the winter when the foliage is not present. The ball fields are approximately 0.5 miles southeast of the Site. Although the ball fields were locked at the time of the field reconnaissance, limited views of the LCEP Equipment may be available above the tree line from this ball field, which already has views of the ConEd Complex.

The Visual Study Area also includes a number of small neighborhood parks, playgrounds and sitting areas (see Table 3.12-1). These areas are generally small parks with green space and trees and include walkways with some benches and a variety of recreational facilities (e.g., basketball courts, playground equipment, etc.). Open views of the LCEP Equipment are not expected from these local recreational resources, due to screening provided by intervening structures and vegetation.

The Bowery Bay Boat Club offers the only recreational boating access within the Visual Study Area. The private club is located approximately 0.4 miles to the southeast, off of Berrian Boulevard and Steinway Street, behind an oil terminal. It provides boat access and dockage on Bowery Bay between the oil terminal and the Bowery Bay WPCP. Access to this area was not available during the field reconnaissance

There are no existing federal or state-designated pedestrian trails or greenways within the Visual Study Area.

Major Transportation Corridors

There are no roads within the Visual Study Area that have been designated as scenic byways per the New York State Department of Transportation website according to a July, 19th, 2010 query. However, a wide range of marine, automobile, rail, and public transit routes traverse the Visual Study Area. Major highway access to the region is via the RFK Bridge and Brooklyn Queens Expressway (BQE)/Grand Central Parkway. The Grand Central Parkway and RFK Bridge provide the north-south access to Queens and connect areas of Long Island with Manhattan and the Bronx. This is a major commuter route and the primary road connection between Manhattan and LaGuardia Airport.

The Amtrak-Conrail Hell Gate Line carries rail passengers and freight through the Visual Study Area. The rail line is elevated approximately 125 feet above street level and follows a route parallel to Ditmars Boulevard to 35th Street where it takes a southern turn across the Grand Central Parkway.

Public (i.e., bus and subway) transportation is available in the vicinity of the Site. The closest public transit option is the City Transit Bus system, which operates along 20th Street, 21st Street and Ditmars Boulevard. The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) N Train enters the Visual Study Area by passing beneath the Hell Gate Line on aboveground tracks to its final station at 31st Street and Ditmars Boulevard, approximately 0.9 miles southeast of the Site.

The East River is a major commercial waterway that also receives heavy non-commercial and pleasure boat traffic. Numerous tug boats and barges pass by the Site on a daily basis, throughout the year. The Bowery Bay Boat Club, approximately 0.4 miles to the southeast, provides the nearest recreational boating access point to the East River. Tiffany Pier, a public pier at the end of Tiffany Street in Barretto Point Park in the South Bronx, is located approximately 1.4 miles north of the Site. This is the nearest public facility on the Bronx waterfront and was one of the resources selected for visual simulation (see Section 3.6.1.6).

3.6.1.4 Major Visible Elements of LCEP

The major visual elements of the LCEP Equipment and their preliminary heights above finished grade will be:

The main exhaust stack: 205 feet

The heat recovery steam generator: 115 feet

Steam turbine building: 85 feet

Gas turbine building: 60 feet

Visual simulations of how the LCEP Equipment would look from selected locations that are expected to offer at least partial potential views of the Project were developed based upon these preliminary dimensions of the LCEP Equipment.

3.6.1.5 Field Reconnaissance and Photographic Documentation

A photographic field program was conducted to document land uses and landscape settings, and to assess the extent of potential visibility of the LCEP Equipment from the aesthetic resources of statewide and local significance identified within the Visual Study Area. The field program occurred on the afternoon of October 7th and the morning of October 8th, 2010, under partly cloudy to clear skies and mild temperatures. The field reconnaissance and observations were conducted by car and on foot while utilizing GPS, topographical and GIS maps, atlases and aerial photographs of the surrounding area.

A two-person field team visited accessible identified aesthetic resources listed on Tables 3.5- 2, 3.6-1 and 3.6-2 in the Visual Study Area. Color photographs were taken of the landscape settings, of each resource, and of the view toward the Site from publicly accessible locations at each resource. Photographs were taken using a Canon EOS Digital Rebel camera fitted with a SIGMA lens capable of focal lengths ranging from 24 to 133 millimeters. Photographs were taken using a focal length of 33 millimeters, which on that camera best represents how the human eye sees.

Existing nearby stacks and other large structures in the field of view provided horizontal reference points and assisted in properly aligning the photographs toward the proposed structures. Heights of the existing structures, when known or as estimated using a laser range finder, provided vertical reference points to assess the extent of potential visibility of the major visible structures of the proposed LCEP Equipment.

Photographs were taken with the camera mounted on a tripod at resources where at least partial views of the LCEP Equipment were anticipated, for possible use in visual simulations of how the built Project would look when inserted into the landscape seen at that location. In addition, panoramic series were taken that could be linked together for a larger view of the overall area and to lend perspective to the individual photographs.

Field reconnaissance indicated that views of the LCEP Equipment are not anticipated at 15 of the 18 historic aboveground architectural structures and districts designated as aesthetic resources of statewide significance and identified in the Visual Study Area (see Table 3.5-1). The dense urban development of intervening structures, as well as mature vegetation in residential areas, screened views most of the resources. Limited distant views of the LCEP Equipment may be available from elevated portions of the Hell Gate and Triborough/RFK Bridges, but these would be fleeting views experienced by travelers only when oriented toward the LCEP Equipment. Partial views of the upper portions of the LCEP Equipment may be available from limited areas outside the LaGuardia Marine Air Terminal, but views would also be fleeting as observers are not permitted to linger at the airport exterior. As a result, the limited views from these historic resources were not selected for visual simulation. Nonetheless, when glimpses of the LCEP Equipment would be experienced from those resources, the proposed structures would be visually consistent with those already present in the extensive ConEd Complex.

Of the historic resources of local significance identified in Table 3.5-2, only the LaGuardia Marine Air Terminal (discussed above) is expected to offer limited visibility. As a result, none of these locally significant historic aboveground architectural resources were selected for visual simulation of how the LCEP would look once introduced into the landscape at specific locations.

Potential views at recreational resources nearest the Site are listed on Table 3.6-2. Of these, three locations (termed viewpoints) in the Visual Study Area were found where at least partial views of the LCEP Equipment are expected. These locations offered the most open views found from the identified resources, and were therefore selected for visual simulations and further evaluation. The locations are two painted bike lanes within 20th Avenue in Astoria, and two municipal public parks, one on Randall’s Island, Manhattan and the other at Barretto Point Park in the Bronx. These are considered aesthetic resources of local significance.

3.6.1.6 Selection of Viewpoints for Simulation

All aesthetic resources of statewide and local significance identified within the Visual Study Area were originally candidates for visual simulation of how the LCEP Equipment would look once inserted into the landscape as viewed at or from the resources. Observations during the field reconnaissance found views toward the Site from the majority of the resources were fully screened by intervening buildings, and in some cases (such as the Steinway House), by buildings and mature vegetation (see Figure 3.5-3).

Due to the urban nature of the area, most views toward the Site from Queens itself and, with the exception of immediate shoreline areas, from the Bronx and Manhattan, are not open and panoramic, but are screened to some degree by intervening buildings. Direct full line-of- sight views of the LCEP Equipment will be uncommon. Resource locations that did offer views of at least the upper portions of the LCEP Equipment were found only at shoreline locations

oriented toward the Project, such as Randall’s Island Park in Manhattan and Barretto Point Park in the Bronx, or resources in the immediate vicinity of the Site, such as the 20th Avenue bike lanes.

The three viewpoints selected for visual simulations, all at aesthetic resources of local significance, offered the most open views found of the LCEP Equipment from aesthetic resources within the Visual Study Area. The viewpoints are listed on Table 3.6-3; locations are shown on Figure 3.6-1. Existing and simulated views of the LCEP Equipment from these locations are provided on Figure 3.6.

Table 3.6-3: Viewpoint Locations Selected for Visual Simulation Distance/Direction VP Local Aesthetic Resource Resource Type From Resource to the Site 1 Randall’s Island Park, Manhattan Public park 0.75 miles East Existing bike lanes/ 3 20th Avenue, Astoria 0.56 miles Northeast planned greenway 8 Barretto Point Park, Bronx Public park 1.35 miles Southwest

Examples of the types of screening found at representative resources not selected for visual simulation, such as the nearby Ralph DeMarco Park, the ConEd ball fields, the NRHP-listed Steinway Mansion and Bohemian Hall and Park, and the NRHP-eligible Marine Air Terminal at LaGuardia Airport, are shown on Figure 3.7.

3.6.1.7 Visual Modeling and Simulation

GIS and Global Positioning System technologies were used to build visual simulations by creating a two-dimensional base map and creating a three-dimensional model. A two- dimensional base map was created using ESRI® ArcGIS and Autodesk® AutoCAD software, using dereference orthophotography (aerial photography) from NYSGIS as the foundation for the base map. Orthophotography was used to illustrate and reference surrounding characteristics of the land (water bodies, structures, vegetation, etc.) in the viewpoint photos. The locations of the viewpoints and selected reference points in the field of view of the photos taken in the field were overlaid on top of the orthophotography. Digital Terrain Model data derived from the orthophotography was then added to produce topography of the Visual Study Area. The final base map accurately shows locations, alignments and elevations of existing structures in the field of view, without having to do detailed on-the-ground field surveys.

The three-dimensional model was then created for use in the visual simulation. The base map data generated in the first phase was imported into Autodesk® 3DS Max 2010 to produce the foundation for the visual simulation. The heights and dimensions of known structures were applied in order to properly align the base mapping with the orientation of

the viewpoint photograph taken in the field. The heights of other structures were estimated based on field observations or recorded using a laser range finder, to determine relative heights, to further refine the alignment of the model.

Once the model was aligned with the viewpoint photograph, the Viz software applied correct lighting and shadowing on the model, based upon the structure’s geographic location and time of day of the photograph. The end result is a realistic visual simulation of how a proposed structure would look when inserted into an existing viewscape.

3.6.1.8 Visual Simulation Results

Viewpoint 1

Located at the Randall’s Island Park in Manhattan 0.75 miles west of the Site, Viewpoint 1 shows on Figure 3.6-2A how the existing NYPA Combined Cycle Facility and associated blue storage tanks dominate the existing view. As depicted in simulation in Figure 3.6-2B, only the upper sections of the LCEP Equipment would be visible from viewpoint 1, with the lower portions screened by existing utility infrastructure and vegetation. Given the current industrial view at this location, the visual impact of the LCEP Equipment will be minimal and consistent with the existing viewscape.

Viewpoint 3

Located along the 20th Avenue bike lanes in Astoria approximately 0.56 miles southwest of the Site, this viewpoint represents the closest publicly accessible location offering potential views of the LCEP Equipment. As depicted in the Figure 3.6-3A, the existing view toward the Site contains the ConEd complex electrical distribution infrastructure which is partially obstructed by a seven-foot-high steel fence at the ConEd Complex property line. This high fence continues to run along the northern side of the bike lane bordering the ConEd complex, and therefore continues to partially screen views of the Site from the bike lanes. Other locations along this portion of the 20th Avenue bike lanes, which offer the only views from this recreational resource toward the Project, are even more screened than the view at Viewpoint 3 because, in addition to screening from the fence, intervening structures further obstruct the views toward the Project Site.

Visual Screening Along 20th Avenue Bike Lanes

Figure 3.6-6 and the corresponding photolog (Figure 3.6-7) demonstrate the level of visibility toward the Site from the 20th Avenue bike lanes. Field reconnaissance evidenced by ground level photographs taken in October 2010, verified screening provided by nearby industrial structures shown on the aerial photograph in Figure 3.6.6. View 1 (Photos 1 and 2) of Figure 3.6.7 shows a representative view of the 20th Avenue bike lanes with intermittent screening toward the LCEP Site provided by the ConEd Complex Structures and from some street trees.

From the northwest corner of 20th Avenue, the initial 1,450 feet (approximately 0.25 miles) are screened by structures at the ConEd Complex, a chain link fence and mature trees and

dense undergrowth (see View 2 of Figure 3.6-7). These trees and shrubs are not street trees planted along the public sidewalk of 20th Avenue, but are inside the perimeter fence and appear to be a maintained visual buffer intended to screen the views of the ConEd Complex.

Southeast of the planted buffer, a large light orange colored building obstructs views from 20th Avenue for approximately 475 feet (about 0.08 miles), between 23rd Street and Crescent Street (see the left hand side of View 3 of Figure 3.6-7). Several street trees are planted along the sidewalk in close proximity to the large building. As the viewer continues southeast, the street trees become smaller and farther apart.

View 4 of Figure 3.6.-7 is taken from the first relatively unobstructed location available; between Crescent Street and 26th Street at 20th Avenue. This view was also used as a simulation location because of its lack of street trees and intervening buildings (see Simulated View at VP-3) and is located approximately 125 feet (0.02 miles) southeast of View 3. In View 4, it is apparent by square patches of grass in the sidewalk that street trees were once located here, suggesting that if they still grew at this location, the view would have been further screened. Even though this view is the most direct and appears unobstructed, the high metal and brick security fence and intervening power line structures still partially screen the Site.

Continuing southeast on 20th Avenue, views at 26th Street are obstructed by an almost completely bricked-in seating area set back from the sidewalk. No photographs were taken at this location because of the nearly solid back and side walls of the seating area.

View 5 of Figure 3.6-7 is located approximately 400 feet (0.07 miles) southeast of View 4, at 20th Avenue and 27th Street. Views towards the Site are obstructed not only by street trees and the security fence, but by buildings and structures associated with the Con-Ed Complex.

View 6 of Figure 3.6-7 is set slightly south of 20th Avenue and the bike lanes. It was taken from a location between 27th Street and 28th Street and shows not only street trees and intervening structures, but also vegetation on the inside of the security fence partially obscuring views toward the Site.

In summary, of the 1.43 mile length of the 20th Ave. bike lanes from Shore Blvd. in the northwest to Hazen St. in the southeast, only 9% (0.13 miles) offers potential visibility of the Site. Mature trees, a tall security fence and structures such as residential, commercial and municipal buildings, power line structures and street lights all screen or partially screen the view of the Site. Field reconnaissance verified the remainder of 20th Ave. from the alley between 27th St. and 28 St. to Hazen St. (approximately 0.93 miles) contained mainly commercial buildings of varying heights from one to three stories.

The simulated view of the proposed structures from Viewpoint 3 is presented in Figure 3.6- 3B. The upper portions of the LCEP Equipment and stack will be partially visible between the vertical fence posts, but will not protrude above the top fence line when seen from the bike lanes. At Viewpoint 3, a transmission tower is visible behind the fence, but the proposed 205-

foot-high main exhaust stack can still be seen between the fence posts. The second stack indicated by the yellow circle on the aerial inset on the right side of Figure 3.6-3B is the proposed 130-foot-high auxiliary stack, which due to its low height will not be visible at this location. Given the current industrial view at this location, the visual impact of the LCEP Equipment will be minimal and consistent with the existing visual setting of this highly industrialized area.

Viewpoint 8

Located 1.35 miles across the East River at Barretto Park, in the Bronx, this viewpoint offers the most unobstructed view found from an aesthetic resource of the LCEP Equipment and the north side of the ConEd Complex. It should be noted that trees currently along the shore at the ConEd Complex are expected to remain after construction and will partially screen the lower portion of the LCEP Equipment. As depicted in Figure 3.6-4A, the existing AGS Facility and the NYPA Combined Cycle Facility are visible to the right of the Site; the Astoria Energy facilities are visible to the left of the Site. Figure 3.6-4B shows that the LCEP Equipment will have a lower profile relative to the adjacent facilities, and shorter exhaust stacks. Given the current industrial view at this location, the visual impact of the LCEP Equipment will be minimal and consistent with the existing visual setting.

3.6.2 Potential Visual Impacts

Following review of the visual analysis conducted for the Project, the NYSOPRHP found in its letter dated April 1, 2011 that the Project as proposed will not visually impact historic aboveground architectural properties within the 2-mile visual study area, and will have No Adverse Impact upon historic resources (see Appendix B).

3.6.2.1 Construction

Potential visual impacts due to construction of the LCEP Equipment will be temporary and typical of construction activities along this active industrial waterfront. Construction is anticipated to last for approximately 24 months. The most visible component during construction will be the large cranes necessary for the movement of materials and placement of Project components on the Site. Other construction equipment will also be temporarily visible on the Site, such as concrete mixing trucks with extended delivery cutes or pipes, but will be less visible than the cranes.

3.6.2.2 Operation

Views of the LCEP Equipment, once operational, are not anticipated to significantly affect the surrounding residential neighborhood, the identified recreation sites, or any of the historic resources identified in the Visual Study Area, given the long-term industrial activity at the extensive ConEd Complex. The Site is located in a highly altered, heavily industrialized area with similar largely energy-related facilities nearby. The LCEP Equipment is anticipated to be screened from view to the south, southwest and east by intervening structures. Views from Rikers Island, the East River and shoreline of the Bronx are expected; however, with the

exception of Barretto Park, no other aesthetic resources of local or statewide significance were identified in these areas with views toward the Site.

The LCEP Equipment will be consistent in appearance, scale, type and use with existing and similar industrial and energy-related structures in the immediate vicinity.

Night Lighting

Night lighting will be required to provide safety for employees and visitors to the Site, and for security reasons. Light fixtures will be designed to reflect light downward onto the work areas or across areas of traffic. Where possible, lighting will be controlled by motion sensors or hard switches. Structure heights will be designed to be as low as possible, but AGC may be required to install aviation lights to satisfy FAA requirements.

3.6.3 Proposed Mitigation

Because the LCEP Equipment will be consistent in appearance, scale, type and use with existing and similar industrial and energy-related structures in the immediate vicinity, therefore no significant visual impacts to identified resources will occur. In addition, design measures have been incorporated into the LCEP Equipment to further reduce its visual impacts. Compatible colors will be used for the stack, tanks, and Site buildings and landscaping and architectural treatments are being incorporated into the Site design. Further discussion of design strategies to minimize visual impacts is detailed in Section 10.

The NYSOPRHP found in its letter dated April 1, 2011 that the Project as proposed will not visually impact historic aboveground architectural properties within the 2-mile visual study area, and will have No Adverse Impact upon historic resources (see Appendix B). No further mitigation is required.

3.6.4 References

National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places. National Register Research, Google Earth Layers. Accessed multiple times from July 16 to July 26, 2010. http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/research/index.htm

Reference: New York City Department of Parks & Recreation – Barretto Point Park. Accessed January 14, 2011. http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/barrettopointpark

New York City Department of Parks & Recreation - Find a Park. Accessed multiple times from July 16 2010 to July 19 2010. http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/park_list/index.html

New York City Landmarks Commission - accessed January 25, 2011.

http://gis.nyc.gov/doitt/nycitymap/

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2000. Visual Policy. Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts DEP-00-2. Accessed July 16 2010. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/visual2000.pdf

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Accessed multiple times from July 13 to July 19, 2010. http://nysparks.state.ny.us/

New York State Department of Transportation, Scenic Byways Map. Accessed on July 19, 2010. https://www.nysdot.gov/display/programs/scenic-byways/maps

New York Times. 2009. Article published February 3, 2009 entitled “Lawsuits Suggest Pattern of Rikers Guards Looking Other Way”. Accessed July 28, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/nyregion/04rikers.html?_r=1&ref=rikers_island_pri son_complex

Queens East River and North Shore Greenway Master Plan. New York City Department of City Planning, New York City Department of Parks & Recreation 2006. Accessed on July 19, 2010. http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_things_to_do/facilities/af_bike_maps.html

PlaNYC. North and South Brothers Islands. Accessed July 28, 2010. http://www.plannyc.org/taxonomy/term/688

3.7 Noise

This section describes the existing acoustic environment, potential noise impacts, regulatory requirements, and proposed noise mitigation measures associated with the operation and construction of the LCEP Equipment. Detailed information for this section is contained within the Sound Survey and Analysis Report, which is included in its entirety as Appendix D to this document. The Sound Survey and Analysis Report evaluated potential adverse noise impacts from the operation of the LCEP Equipment to the surrounding community with respect to applicable state and local regulations. The Sound Survey and Analysis Report also includes a detailed description of sound levels and definitions of terms used in the noise impact assessment.

3.7.1 Existing Conditions

The Site is within the FOTF, located on the north side of the ConEd Complex, which is currently occupied by four electric generating facilities: the NYPA Charles Poletti Power Project, the NYPA Combined Cycle Facility, the NRG Astoria GT Facility, and AGC’s AGS. In addition to the electric generating stations, ConEd owns and operates two switchyards and ConEd’s Transmission and Distribution Service Center within the boundaries of the 318-acre ConEd Complex. All of these facilities contribute to the existing noise environment associated with the ConEd Complex. The Site is approximately 0.5 miles away from the nearest residential properties, located along 20th Avenue on the southern boundary of the ConEd Complex.

3.7.1.1 Baseline Ambient Sound Level Measurements

Ambient sound level measurements were performed in accordance with the Noise Protocol at four noise-sensitive locations along the boundary of the residential district, adjacent to the ConEd Complex. Short-term ambient sound level measurements of at least 20 minutes in duration were performed at each location during representative daytime hours. Since the LCEP Equipment is expected to operate 24 hours a day, ambient sound level measurements were repeated at each location during representative nighttime hours. The purpose of the

ambient sound measurements is to establish a baseline of the existing noise environment, in order to assess the potential noise impacts from the LCEP Equipment.

Ambient sound measurements were performed with a Larson Davis Model 831 precision integrating sound level meter that meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards for Type I instruments. During the measurement program, the microphone was fitted with a windscreen, set upon a tripod at a height of 5 feet above ground, and located out of the influence of any vertical reflecting surfaces. The sound level meter was calibrated at the beginning and end of the measurement period using a Larson Davis Model CAL200 acoustic calibrator.

At the conclusion of the ambient sound level measurement program, the data were downloaded to a computer, archived, and then exported to a spreadsheet format for subsequent processing and analysis.

3.7.1.2 Measurement Location Descriptions and Environmental Conditions

Figure 3.7-1 shows the four measurement locations in relation to the Site. Table 3.7-1 provides a description of each receptor. The nearest receptor (Location 4) is 2,510 feet from the Site. Measurement Locations 1 through 3 are located in the adjoining residential district along 20th Avenue to the southwest of the Site.

Ambient sound level measurements were performed over a 4-day period between October 3 and October 8, 2010. Appendix D includes detailed hourly weather observations from the meteorological station at LaGuardia Airport for the period of time corresponding to the measurement program.

3.7.1.3 Results of Ambient Sound Level Measurements

Table 3.7-1 provides a summary of the ambient sound levels recorded at each of the measurement locations. The values presented in Table 3.7-1 serve as the basis for the evaluation of potential noise impacts due to operation of the LCEP Equipment. Ambient sound level measurements were performed both on a weekend and on a weekday, during both typical nighttime periods (from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and typical daytime periods (from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). The results of the measurement program demonstrated that ambient sound levels were generally lower on the weekend than on the weekday, and that ambient sound levels were lower during nighttime periods. Table 3.7-1 summarizes the measured ambient sound levels on a weekend during both daytime and nighttime periods.

The measured nighttime equivalent sound level (Leq) shown in Table 3.7-1 serves as the basis for establishing the existing conditions for the assessment of operational noise from the LCEP Equipment.

Table 3.7-1: Summary of Measured Ambient Sound Levels

Location Day or Lmax L10 L50 L90 Leq Ldn No. Night (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) Day 83.8 67.3 60.5 58.4 64.0 1 66.9 Night 84.2 61.2 57.9 56.6 59.5 Day 89.5 71.1 62.1 57.2 67.7 2 69.5 Night 79.8 62.8 56.0 53.2 61.4 Day 84.2 70.7 61.1 55.2 67.1 3 70.4 Night 81.6 65.4 53.3 50.9 63.2 Day 89.1 59.3 55.6 54.4 62.0 4 63.1 Night 60.7 55.4 54.4 53.5 54.5 Notes: Source: ESS Group, Inc., 2010. Sound level measurements taken October 3-8, 2010. L10: Sound Pressure Level Exceeded 10% of the Time L90: Sound Pressure Level Exceeded 90% of the Time The estimated Ldn was calculated using the following equation, with Ld set to the measured Leq during the daytime period and Ln set to the measured Leq during the nighttime period: (Ld/10) ((Ln + 10)/10) Ldn = 10 x log10( ( 15 x 10 + 9 x 10 )/ 24 ) Note that the estimated existing Ldn at each measurement location exceeds the U.S. EPA’s guideline value of 55 dB(A) Ldn. This is typical of an urban setting.

3.7.2 Noise Regulations and Guidelines

Potential noise impacts resulting from the operation of the LCEP Equipment were evaluated with respect to noise guidelines and regulations established by the State and the City. Applicable operational noise regulations are contained within the NYSDEC policy and guidance document11, the CEQR Technical Manual, City Zoning Regulations, and the City Noise Code, which took effect on July 1, 2007. Noise regulations pertaining to the construction of the LCEP Equipment are contained within the City Administrative Code.

3.7.2.1 Noise Regulations: Operation Phase

The NYSDEC policy and guidance document “Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts” identifies thresholds for significant increases in sound pressure level, both in terms of an increase above ambient levels and in terms of an absolute limit. While not actual regulatory limits, these guidelines are useful in determining when the sound from a proposed project may approach levels of concern. The NYSDEC criteria state that the sound pressure level

from a noise source should not exceed ambient levels by more than 6 dB(A) Leq at the receptor. Furthermore, the addition of a noise source should not raise the ambient noise level

at the receptor above a maximum of 65 dB(A) Leq. NYSDEC considers 65 dB(A) Leq an “upper end” limit, since this level allows for undisturbed speech at a distance of approximately

11 NYSDEC “Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impact”, Program Policy Guideline DEP-00-1, Revised February 2, 2001

12 3 feet. NYSDEC also recognizes that an ambient Ldn of 55 dB(A) was found by the U.S. EPA to be sufficient to protect public health and welfare and minimize community annoyance. These guideline values are assessed at the property line of the parcel on which the facility is located, or at the location of use or inhabitance on adjacent property.

The applicable noise guidelines established by NYSDEC, “Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts,” DEP 00 1, (Revised: February 2, 2001) are:

Addition of noise in a non-industrial setting should not raise the ambient sound level above 65 dB(A) at the receptor.

In non-industrial settings the SPL should probably not exceed ambient noise by more than 6 dB(A) at the receptor.

The CEQR Technical Manual provides methods and procedures for determining the potential effects of a proposed action on noise-sensitive land uses, including residential, commercial and institutional uses. Section 410 of the CEQR Technical Manual provides exterior limits that

are based on achieving an acceptable interior noise level of 45 dB(A) (L10(1-hr) or Ldn, depending upon the source of noise). The CEQR Technical Manual establishes a daytime

noise limit of 65 dB(A) Leq(1-hr) as the level at which a significant impact occurs. This is a cumulative effect, whereby the limit combines the contributions from the proposed action with ambient sound levels. For significant impacts at night, the CEQR Technical Manual

identifies a 3-dB increase in the hourly equivalent sound level (Leq(1-hr)) as the threshold for a significant impact. The applicable operational noise criteria established by the CEQR Technical Manual, Chapter 19, Section 410, (Revised: May 2010) are:

Threshold for significant impact during daytime periods is 65 dB(A) Leq(1-hr).

An increase in ambient sound level of 3 dB(A) Leq during nighttime hours is considered significant.

Section 24-218 of the City Noise Code limits the increase above ambient sound levels attributable to a source of sound to 7 dB(A) during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and 10 dB(A) during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.), when measured at a distance of 15 feet or more from the source on a public right-of-way. Section 24-232 of the City Noise Code identifies allowable octave band sound levels as measured within the receiving property. For residential or mixed use buildings, the octave band limits are applied within the living space of any room in the residential portion of the building with windows open, if possible. For commercial buildings, the octave band limits are applied at any room containing offices within the building with windows open, if possible. Table 3.7-2 summarizes the applicable noise impact thresholds that are contained within the City Noise Code.

12 Note that the estimated existing Ldn at each measurement location exceeds the U.S. EPA’s guideline value of 55 dBA Ldn. This is typical of an urban setting.

Table 3.7-2: Operational Noise Limits Based on the City Noise Code

Octave Band Interior Octave Band Limits for Interior Octave Band Limits for (Hertz) Residential Receptors (dB) Commercial Receptors (dB) 31.5 70 74 63 61 64 125 53 56 250 46 50 500 40 45 1 k 36 41 2 k 34 39 4 k 33 38 8 k 32 37 Increases in ambient sound levels must not exceed 7 dB(A) between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. at any receiving property Overall Increases in ambient sound levels must not exceed 10 dB(A) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. at any receiving property Source: Section 24-218 of the Local Law No. 113 of 2005 of the City of New York.

Section 42-213 of the City Zoning Regulation contains noise performance standards for uses in manufacturing districts. Sound pressure levels resulting from any activity, whether open or enclosed, cannot exceed the maximum permitted octave band levels as shown Table 3.7-4 for M3 Districts, at any point on or beyond the lot line. In the enforcement of this regulation, sounds produced by the operation of motor vehicles or other transportation facilities shall not be included in determining the maximum permitted levels.

Section 42-214 of the City Zoning Resolution contains special provisions that apply along district boundaries. Whenever a Manufacturing District adjoins a Residence District, the maximum permitted octave band levels for that District shall be reduced by 6 dB from the maximum levels shown in Table 3.7-3 at any point at the district boundary or within the Residence District. Table 3.7-3 also shows the applicable noise limits for an M3 District adjoining a residential district.

Table 3.7-3: Maximum Permitted Sound Pressure Levels from the City Zoning Resolution

Octave Band Limits for M3 Octave Band Octave Band Limits for M3 District Adjoining a Residential (Hertz) District (dB) District (dB) 31.5 80 74 63 80 74 125 75 69

Octave Band Limits for M3 Octave Band Octave Band Limits for M3 District Adjoining a Residential (Hertz) District (dB) District (dB) 250 70 64 500 64 58 1 k 58 52 2 k 53 47 4 k 49 43 8 k 46 40 Source: Based on The City of New York, “Zoning Resolution (Web Version), Article IV: Manufacturing District Regulations, Chapter 2 – Use Regulations,” effective date 6/30/2009.

3.7.2.2 Noise Regulations: Construction Phase

Subchapter 4 of the City Noise Code establishes standards and procedures to reduce noise levels from construction and establishes sound level standards for specific noise sources. This section of the City Noise Code also prescribes methods, procedures and technologies that shall be used at construction sites to achieve noise mitigation where one or more construction devices or activities set forth in the rules are employed or performed. The City Noise Code also requires contractors to develop and implement a Construction Noise Mitigation Plan. In addition, Chapter 28 of Title 15 of the RCNY prescribe the methods, procedures, and technologies that shall be used at construction sites to achieve noise mitigation whenever one or more of certain construction devices or activities set forth therein are employed or performed. Table 3.7-4 summarizes the applicable rules and noise impact thresholds for construction-related activities within the City.

Table 3.7-4: City Noise Impact Thresholds for Construction Activities Citation Regulation Section 24-222 City Noise Code Limits work between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Limits sound other than impulsive (e.g., pile driving) to less than Section 24-228 City Noise Code or equal to 85 dB(A) at property boundary. Section 24-220 City Noise Code Adopt and implement a Construction Noise Mitigation Plan and 15 RCNY 28-100 developed prior to construction and posted at site. Source: City Noise Code and Chapter 28 of Title 15 of the RCNY.

3.7.3 Potential Operational Impacts

3.7.3.1 Operation Phase: Sound Level Methodology

The Cadna-A® computer noise model was used to estimate sound pressure levels from the operation of the LCEP Equipment at the closest noise-sensitive receptors in the adjoining

residential district south of 20th Avenue. Cadna-A® is an industry standard application that was developed by DataKustik GmbH to provide an estimate of sound levels at distances from specific noise sources. This model takes into account:

Sound power levels from stationary and mobile sources

The effects of terrain features including relative elevations of noise sources

The locations of noise-sensitive land use

Intervening objects including buildings and sound barrier walls

Ground effects due to areas of pavement and unpaved ground

Cadna-A® accounts for shielding and reflections due to intervening buildings or other structures in the propagation path, as well as diffracted paths around and over structures, which tend to reduce computed noise levels. The shielding effects due to non-Project buildings on the site of the ConEd Complex were not included within the model of the LCEP Equipment, thereby adding a level of conservatism to the results.

The International Standards Organization current standard for outdoor sound propagation (ISO 9613 Part 2 – “Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors”) was used within Cadna-A®. This standard provides a method for calculating environmental noise in communities from a variety of sources with known emission levels. The method contained within the standard calculates the attenuation over the entire sound path under weather conditions that are favorable for sound propagation, such as for downwind propagation or “under a well-developed moderate ground-based temperature inversion.” Application of such weather conditions to the modeling of the Project yields conservative estimates of operational noise levels in the surrounding community.

The output from Cadna-A® includes tabular sound level results at selected receptor locations and colored noise contour maps (isopleths) that show areas of equal and similar sound levels.

Appendix D provides additional details about the input to the noise prediction model for the operational noise assessment for the LCEP Equipment. Input to the model included terrain data, acoustic emissions for major pieces of equipment, and transmission loss data for the new buildings and other structures that are part of the LCEP Equipment and that house major pieces of equipment.

Table 3.7-5 summarizes the A-weighted acoustic emission levels for major pieces of equipment associated with the LCEP Equipment that were used as input to the noise model. The sound power levels shown in the table are without mitigation.

Table 3.7-5: LCEP List of Equipment and Unmitigated Sound Power Levels

Source Name Equipment Lw dB(A) Main Step Up Transformer 107 Auxiliary Transformer 93 Fuel Gas Compressor, including drive motor 112 Fuel Gas Compressor Fin Fan Cooler 106 CT Enclosure Walls 94 CT Enclosure Air Inlet Vent 82 CT Enclosure Air Discharge Vent 80 CT Hydrogen Cooled Generator 110 CT Inlet Duct Wall - Lagged 95 CT Inlet Filter House 97 CT Lube Oil Package (fully enclosed) 98 CT Lube Oil (fin fan cooler) 93 Glycol Cooler 94 Fuel Gas Piping 96 Fuel Oil Pump Skid 111 Water Injection Pump Skid 108 CT Exhaust and Expansion Joints 110 Steam Turbine and Generator 110 ST Lube Oil 104 ST Hydraulic Supply 97 ST Gland Steam 100 Air Cooled Condenser Steam Duct (unlagged) 96 Air Cooled Condenser 110 HRSG Inlet Transition Duct (upstream half) 103 HRSG Inlet Transition Duct (downstream half) 103 HRSG Body (upstream half) 94 HRSG Body (downstream half) 86 HRSG Exhaust Stack (lower half) 78 HRSG Exhaust Stack (upper half) 81 Stack Exit 106 SCR Ammonia Skid 105 HRSG Supplementary Firing Duct Burner 109 Source: Based on information provided by Siemens, 2010.

3.7.3.2 Operation Phase: Unmitigated Sound Level Results

The LCEP Equipment will be an efficient state-of-the-art facility that will incorporate design features to minimize the potential adverse effects of operational noise on the surrounding community. For example, all major pieces of equipment (the SiemensCT, the ST/generator unit, the CT exhaust and expansion joints, and the power control center for the CT) will be

housed in acoustically rated structures. Additionally, the main step-up transformers associated with the SiemensCT and the ST/generator will be enclosed by sound barrier walls.

With the basic noise control features described in the preceding paragraph, operational noise levels are expected to meet the guideline values established by NYSDEC at locations throughout the community, as well as the octave band limits for an M3 District adjoining a Residential District that are contained within the NYC Zoning Resolution. However, with only the basic noise control features described in the preceding paragraph incorporated into the design of the LCEP Equipment, operational noise levels were found to exceed the octave band limits for an M3 District at two locations along the boundary of the Site, as shown in Table 3.7-6.

Table 3.7-6: Operation Phase: Unmitigated Sound Levels from the LCEP Compared to Octave Band Limits in the City Zoning Resolution for an M3 District

Description Sound Levels in dB by Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz) 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 Limits for M3 District (dB) 80 80 75 70 64 58 53 49 46 Boundary 1 to the southeast 73.1 66.1 61.4 56.0 53.0 45.5 54.6 27.7 0.0 Boundary 2 to the east 70.4 64.2 59.3 53.8 50.6 43.4 52.9 23.2 0.0 Boundary 3 to the north 77.6 73.3 68.8 63.2 61.0 55.3 65.2 43.5 20.6 Boundary 4 to the northwest 64.3 56.4 54.7 50.2 48.8 40.2 38.3 9.6 0.0 Notes: Based on NYC Zoning Resolution (web version), effective 6/30/2009. Noise levels exceeding regulatory thresholds are listed in bold font.

Unmitigated operational noise levels were found to exceed the octave band limit in the 2 kHz band at two locations along the boundary line of the ConEd Complex: one to the southeast of the Site and one to the north. The primary piece of equipment that contributes to this exceedance is the steam duct system that runs from the ST/generator to the air cooled condenser. To meet the octave band limits, additional noise control measures were incorporated into the noise prediction model, as described in the following section.

3.7.3.3 Operation Phase: Mitigation

Although the LCEP Equipment will incorporate many design features to minimize potential noise impacts during operation, additional noise control measures must be incorporated to meet the octave band limits contained within the NYC Zoning Resolution at two locations along the boundary of the ConEd Complex. The preliminary sound power levels for the steam duct that were used as input to the noise prediction model were for an unlagged duct. To mitigate this potential noise impact, the design of the LCEP Equipment will include lagging for the steam duct from the ST/generator unit to the air cooled condenser.

3.7.3.4 Mitigated Operation Phase: Sound Level Results

With the additional noise control features described in the preceding section, operational noise levels from the LCEP Equipment are expected to be well below existing ambient sound levels in the surrounding community. As shown in Table 3.7-8, ambient sound levels range

from 54.5 dB(A) Leq at Location 1 to 63.2 dB(A) Leq at Location 3. In comparison, operational

noise levels from the LCEP facility are expected to range from 36.5 dB(A) Leq at Location 1 to

41.7 dB(A) Leq at Location 4. The LCEP is expected to have a minimal effect on ambient sound levels in the adjacent community. As shown in Table 3.7-7 and Figure 3.8-1, the

projected increase in the nighttime Leq is expected to range from 0.0 to 0.2 dB(A).

Table 3.7-7: Operation Phase: Mitigated Sound Pressure Levels from the LCEP Compared to NYSDEC Guidelines

NYSDEC Increase Ambient1 Project2 Total3 Noise Ambient1 Project2 Total3 Location in L due L L L eq Limit for L L L No. eq eq eq to LCEP dn dn dn (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) Increase (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) 1 59.5 36.5 59.5 0.0 6 66.9 42.9 66.9 2 61.4 40.6 61.4 0.0 6 69.5 47.0 69.5 3 63.2 40.3 63.2 0.0 6 70.4 46.7 70.4 4 54.5 41.7 54.7 0.2 6 63.1 48.1 63.2 Notes: Based on NYSDEC, DEP 00 1, February 2, 2001, and NYC CEQR Technical Manual, Chapter 3R, Section 410. 1. Ambient sound levels are based on the measured nighttime sound levels shown in Table 3.7-2. 2. Project noise levels were calculated with Cadna-A® for full, normal operations of the LCEP Equipment. 3. Total noise levels combine the contribution from LCEP Equipment operations with ambient sound levels.

The calculated Ldn due to full, normal operation of the LCEP Equipment is expected to range

from 42.9 dB(A) at Location 1 to 48.1 dB(A) at Location 4. These projected Ldn values are

well below the guideline value of 55 dB(A) Ldn that has been established by NYSDEC and U.S. EPA to be sufficient to protect public health and welfare, and to minimize community

annoyance. Note that the existing ambient Ldn exceeds this guideline value, which is typical of an urban environment.

Table 3.7-8 shows the projected interior octave band levels due to full, normal operation of the LCEP Equipment at four community locations. These interior levels assume an overall outdoor-to-indoor noise level reduction of approximately 10 to 15 dB, which is typical of a “windows-open” condition for residential structures in the northern U.S. As shown in the table, interior noise levels due to the LCEP Equipment are expected to meet the limits contained in the NYC Noise Code for residential receptors. Note that the interior levels shown in the table below do not include the contribution from non-Project sources.

Table 3.7-8: Operation Phase: Mitigated Sound Levels from the LCEP Compared to Octave Band Limits in the NYC Noise Code for Residential Receptors Calculated LCEP Sound Pressure Levels in dB by Octave Description Band Center Frequency (Hz) 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 Interior Limits for 70 61 53 46 40 36 34 33 32 Residential Receptors (dB) 1 - interior octave band levels 62.1 51.2 41.2 24.6 14.7 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 - interior octave band levels 64.7 56.1 45.7 28.7 18.1 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 - interior octave band levels 64.0 56.3 45.6 28.5 17.6 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 - interior octave band levels 65.1 57.2 47.0 30.0 18.9 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Note: Based on Section 24-218 of the Local Law No. 113 of 2005 of the City of New York.

Table 3.7-9 shows the projected exterior octave band levels due to full, normal operation of the LCEP Equipment at four community locations. These octave band levels are compared to the limits for an M3 District adjoining a residential district, which are contained in the NYC Zoning Resolution. As shown in the table, the octave band levels due to the LCEP Equipment are expected to meet the applicable limits – provided the LCEP Equipment incorporates the noise control features previously described. Note that the octave levels shown in the table below do not include the contribution from non-Project sources.

Table 3.7-9: Operation Phase: Mitigated Sound Levels from the LCEP Compared to Octave Band Limits in the NYC Zoning Resolution for a M3 District Adjoining a Residential District Calculated LCEP Sound Pressure Levels in dB by Octave Description Band Center Frequency (Hz) 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 Limits for M3 District Adjoining a Residential 74 74 69 64 58 52 47 43 40 District (dB) 1 - exterior octave band levels 62.1 51.2 46.3 38.5 34.6 27.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 2 - exterior octave band levels 64.7 56.1 50.7 42.7 38.1 31.2 21.9 0.0 0.0 3 - exterior octave band levels 64.0 56.3 50.6 42.5 37.6 30.7 21.2 0.0 0.0 4 - exterior octave band levels 65.1 57.2 52.0 44.0 38.9 32.5 24.2 0.0 0.0 Note: Based on City Zoning Resolution (web version), effective 6/30/2009.

Table 3.7-10 shows the projected exterior octave band levels due to full, normal operation of the LCEP Equipment at four locations along the boundary of the ConEd Complex. These octave band levels are compared to the limits for an M3 District, which are contained in the NYC Zoning Resolution. As shown in the table, the octave band levels due to the LCEP Equipment are expected to meet the applicable limits – provided the LCEP Equipment

incorporates the noise control features previously described. Note that the octave levels shown in the table below do not include the contribution from non-Project sources.

Table 3.7-10: Operation Phase: Mitigated Sound Levels from the LCEP Compared to Octave Band Limits in the NYC Zoning Resolution for a M3 District Calculated LCEP Sound Pressure Levels in dB by Octave Description Band Center Frequency (Hz) 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 Limits for M3 District (dB) 80 80 75 70 64 58 53 49 46 Boundary 1 to the southeast 73.1 64.9 59.9 52.5 48.4 43.0 37.6 21.9 0.0 Boundary 2 to the east 70.4 62.6 57.6 50.0 45.6 40.2 34.8 15.8 0.0 Boundary 3 to the north 77.5 71.3 66.1 58.7 54.9 49.4 46.1 30.6 6.6 Boundary 4 to the northwest 64.3 54.0 49.1 42.0 38.7 32.0 22.9 0.0 0.0 Note: Based on City Zoning Resolution (web version), effective 6/30/2009.

Operational noise levels from the LCEP Equipment are expected to meet NYSDEC guidelines and the applicable noise limits in the NYC Zoning Resolution, provided the acoustical performance of each major piece of equipment meets the acoustic emission levels that were used as input to the noise prediction model. Furthermore, the design of the LCEP Equipment shall included acoustically rated structures for the SiemensCT, the ST/generator unit, the CT exhaust and expansion joints, and the power control center for the CT. Additional noise control features include sound barrier walls around the generator transformers and lagging for the duct from the ST/generator unit to the air cooled condenser.

3.7.4 Potential Construction Impacts

3.7.4.1 Construction Phase: Sound Level Methodology

Acoustic emission levels for activities associated with the construction of the LCEP Equipment were based upon typical ranges of energy equivalent noise levels at construction sites, as documented in the U.S. EPA’s “Construction Noise Control Technology Initiatives” (U.S. EPA, Technical Report No. 1789, September 1980). Using those energy equivalent noise levels as input to a basic propagation model, construction noise levels were calculated at each of the community locations previously identified as Locations 1 to 4. The basic model assumed spherical wave divergence from a point source located at the acoustic center of the construction site. Furthermore, the model conservatively assumed that all pieces of construction equipment associated with an activity would operate simultaneously for the duration of that activity. An additional level of conservatism was built into the construction noise model by excluding the shielding effects due to intervening structures and buildings along the propagation path from the construction site to noise-sensitive locations in the community.

3.7.4.2 Construction Phase: Sound Level Results

Table 3.7-11 summarizes the projected noise levels due to construction of the LCEP

Equipment. As shown in the table, the highest projected Leq from construction related activity is expected to occur at Location 2, during activities associated with excavation and finishing work.

Section 24-228 of the NYC Code limits noise levels from construction activity other than impulsive noise (e.g., pile driving) to a level that is less than or equal to 85 dB(A) at the property boundary.

Table 3.7-11: Construction Phase: Projected Sound Levels

50 feet from Projected L (dB(A)) Due to Construction Activity Construction eq Activity (L ) Activity eq Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 (dB(A)) (3,240 feet) (2,805 feet) (3,205 feet) (3,080 feet) Ground 84 48 49 48 48 Clearing Excavation 89 53 54 53 53 Foundations 88 52 53 52 52 Erection 87 51 52 51 51 Finishing 89 53 54 53 53 Note: Noise levels from construction activity at a distance of 50 feet are based on U.S. EPA, “Construction Noise Control Technology Initiatives, Task Report,” p. 2-5, September 1980.

3.7.4.3 Construction Phase: Mitigation

The City Noise Code establishes regulations for controlling noise from activities such as those associated with the construction of the LCEP Equipment. Section 24-220 of the City Administrative Code requires that any entity performing construction work in the City “shall adopt and implement a noise mitigation plan for each construction site,” in accordance with Section 28-100 of RCNY [Chapter 28, “Citywide Construction Noise Mitigation,” Title 15 RCNY]. All construction activities will adhere to the requirements set forth in the City’s noise regulations. The construction management protocols for the LCEP Equipment will include the following noise mitigation measures:

Maintain all construction tools and equipment in good operating order according to manufacturers’ specifications.

To the extent practicable, schedule construction activity during normal working hours on weekdays when higher sound levels are typically present, and are found acceptable.

Equip any internal combustion engine used for any purpose on the job or related to the job with a properly operating muffler that is free from rust, holes, and leaks.

For construction devices that utilize internal combustion engines, ensure the engine’s housing doors are kept closed, install noise-insulating material mounted on the engine housing consistent with manufacturers’ guidelines, and operate the devices at lower speeds, if possible.

Minimize on-site vehicle engine idling according to City Administrative Code Section 24- 163.

As necessary, provide additional noise mitigation to pieces of equipment identified in Section 28-102 of RCNY.

3.7.5 Construction and Operation/Monitoring Plan

Prior to the start of construction, a procedure for addressing any noise complaints received from residents will be prepared. Following the construction of the LCEP Equipment, a post construction noise monitoring plan will be prepared and implemented. This plan will describe the methods that will be used to confirm that the noise levels at the following four noise receptor locations meet the applicable regulations and guidelines.

1. Residences along 20th Avenue, between 20th Street and 21st Street

2. Residences along 20th Avenue, between 27th Street and 28th Street

3. Residences along 20th Avenue, between 35th Street and 36th Street

4. The Steinway Mansion on 41st Street

This post construction noise monitoring will be conducted both in daytime hours (between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime hours (between midnight and 2:00 a.m.). Sound measurements will be taken while the LCEP Equipment is operating, consistent with operating schedules, using the same type of monitoring equipment and procedures that are discussed in Appendix D. Following the completion of the monitoring, AGC will prepare a report for submittal to NYSDEC that will demonstrate that the LCEP Equipment is in compliance with all applicable regulatory noise limits and guidelines described above.

3.7.6 Cumulative Noise Assessment

This sub-section presents an evaluation of the cumulative effect of noise generated by the operation of the LCEP Equipment and other reasonably foreseeable future actions (i.e. other energy generation development projects). The following reasonably foreseeable future actions were considered for this assessment:

Phase II of the Astoria Energy Project currently under construction; and

Astoria Repowering Project proposed by NRG Energy.

Reference sound pressure levels at a distance of 50 feet were developed for the operation of each of the two reasonably foreseeable future actions, based on information that was available from publicly available sources.13,14 Sound pressure levels at a reference distance of 50 feet were derived for Phase II of the Astoria Energy Project and for NRG Energy’s Astoria Repowering Project, based on the results of previous operational noise analyses that were performed for both of those projects. In short, the projected operational sound levels at specified receiver locations (in each study) were normalized to a reference distance of 50 feet using a basic propagation model that assumes spherical divergence from a point source. To normalize the projected operational noise levels, it was assumed that all of the sound energy was located at the acoustic center of each facility under consideration. Then, using these 50-foot sound pressure levels as input to a basic propagation model, operational noise levels from Phase II of the Astoria Energy Project and the Astoria Repowering Project were predicted at the community locations identified as Locations 1 to 4 in previous sub-sections. The basic model assumes spherical wave divergence from a point source located at the acoustic center of each facility. The model does not include the shielding effects due to intervening structures and buildings, and therefore includes a level of conservatism. The projected sound pressure levels due to operation of the two reasonably foreseeable future actions were combined with the projected operational noise levels from the LCEP Equipment to evaluate the cumulative noise effects of the LCEP Equipment with other future actions. As shown in Table 3.7-12, the LCEP Equipment will have a minimal cumulative effect on area-wide sound levels in the adjacent community.

Table 3.7-12: Cumulative Noise Assessment due to Operations

Reasonably Leq at 50 feet Projected Leq (dB(A)) Due to Operation of Reasonably Foreseeable Future from Project Foreseeable Future Actions or Projects and the LCEP Action or Project (dB(A)) Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Astoria II (SCS) 80 41.6 45.2 48.2 56.2 Astoria GT Project 87 52.8 53.1 50.6 49.7 (NRG) LCEP Equipment - 36.5 40.6 40.3 41.7 Total - 53.2 54.0 52.8 57.2

3.8 Traffic/Transportation

This section presents information on the existing conditions, potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures to traffic/transportation due to the construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment. The main vehicular entrance to the ConEd Complex is located at 20th Avenue in Queens, New York. A second access is located at 31st Street. The 31st street access will be utilized for the majority of the over the road deliveries during construction. AGC will utilize the A-10 waterfront facility, which supports fuel oil deliveries to the existing AGS Facility, to receive some components via

13 Astoria Energy LLC, Queens New York Facility Article X Application, Noise Assessment, TRC, June 2000 14 NRG Astoria Gas Turbine Power Project FEIS, Noise Impact Assessment Report, TRC February 2009

barge delivery to the extent practical, but the majority of waterborne deliveries will be received at the ConEd A-12 dock or the AGS A-0 dock.

3.8.1 Existing Conditions

Due to its history as an urban and industrial center, the ConEd Complex in northwest Queens is served by a well established network of interstate, federal, and state highways, as well as local roads. As indicated on Figure 3.8-1, truck routes in the vicinity of the Site range from expressways to local truck routes and principal streets. Major highway access to the region is via the Triborough Bridge (aka RFK Bridge) and the BQE/Grand Central Parkway. Sections 3.8.1.1 and 3.8.1.2 present the existing rules and restrictions regarding vehicle traffic in the City metropolitan area, the background traffic volume conditions, and preferred routes and commuting options for accessing the Site.

3.8.1.1 Size and Weight Restrictions

The City DOT has established maximum dimensional restrictions for vehicles (City DOT, 2010a). Table 3.8-1 details the size and weight restrictions for various vehicles.

Table 3.8-1: New York City Vehicular Size and Weight Restrictions Dimension Vehicle Description Value School buses and fire vehicles 8 feet 2 inches Width Buses having a carrying capacity of more than seven passengers 8 feet 6 inches All other vehicles 8 feet Height All vehicles 13 feet 6 inches Single unit vehicles 35 feet Articulated buses 65 feet Length Semi-trailers and combinations of vehicles 55 feet Combination of vehicles (there is no limit on total length for 55 feet qualifying highways and access highways) Weight per inch width of tire on one wheel 800 pounds Weight on any one wheel 11,200 pounds Weight on any one axle 22,400 pounds

Weight Weight on any two consecutive axles less than 10 feet apart 36,000 pounds Weight on any three axles (Plus 1,000 pounds per foot and major fraction of a foot between first and last axles, measured center to 34,000 pounds center) Total weight of a vehicle shall not exceed 80,000 pounds

3.8.1.2 Overweight or Oversize Permit

If delivery or construction vehicles exceed the maximum capacities identified in Table 3.8-1, an Oversize/Overweight (OS/OW) Vehicle Permit Application must be completed and filed with the City DOT Bridges Truck Unit. Upon receipt of an approved application, two separate permits will be issued from the City DOT; one is required to travel to the destination within the City and the second is required to leave the destination. Delivery or construction vehicles which exceed 80,000 pounds may also require a permit for special handling from the MTA Bridges and Tunnels Department (City DOT, 2010b). It will be the responsibility of the delivery or construction contractors to obtain the appropriate permits for their vehicles prior to arriving at the Site.

3.8.1.3 Annual Average Daily Traffic

The New York State Department of Transportation collects and summarizes traffic volume on the State’s highway system. Traffic volume counters are located throughout the State to monitor overall traffic trends. Information from these counters is used to determine the annual average daily traffic. Table 3.8-2 shows the average daily traffic traveled on the roads in the vicinity of the Site.

Table 3.8-2: Average Daily Traffic in the Vicinity of the Site Estimated Average Date of Route From To Direction Daily Count Traffic Astoria Steinway 31st Street Southbound 17,218 03/22/08 Boulevard Street Steinway Street Astoria Boulevard 19th Street Northbound 5,243 05/10/05 Astoria Boulevard Hoyt Avenue I-278 Eastbound 60,367 09/27/05 Exit (#41) Exit (#3) Hoyt Avenue 21st Street 33rd Street East/Westbound 10,927 03/22/08 Source: New York State Department of Transportation (2010).

3.8.1.4 Bridges and Tunnels

There are a total of eighteen bridges and tunnels along the major City metropolitan area transportation routes that may be used to reach the Site from locations outside of the City. Table 3.8-3 lists vicinity bridges and tunnels and their distance and direction from the Site.

Table 3.8-3: Bridges and Tunnels in the Vicinity of the Site Bridge or Tunnel Distance from Site Direction from Site Bronx Whitestone Bridge 3.8 miles East Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, Route 478 8.7 miles Southwest Brooklyn Bridge 7.5 miles Southwest Brooklyn Queens Expressway 1.3 miles South Cross Bay Veterans Memorial Bridge 14.3 miles South Hells Gate Bridge 1.1 miles West Holland Tunnel 7.5 miles Southwest Lincoln Tunnel 6 miles Southwest Manhattan Bridge 7.3 miles Southwest Marine Parkway – Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge 14.9 miles South Pulaski Bridge 4.3 miles Southwest Queens Midtown Tunnel, Route 495 4.5 miles Southwest Queensboro Bridge (Lower Level) 3.5 miles Southwest Rikers Island Bridge 0.5 miles East Throgs Neck Bridge 5.7 miles East Triborough Bridge 1.5 miles Southwest Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, Route 278 14.6 miles Southwest Williamsburg Bridge 6.3 miles Southwest

3.8.1.5 Anticipated Transportation Routes

Equipment and material will be brought via the water to the extent practical. Equipment and material delivered over the road will be brought to the Site using standard construction vehicles, OS/OW tractor-trailers, and special heavy hauling vehicles of various lengths, widths, and weights. Three OS/OW truck routes have been identified using the 2010 edition of the City Truck Route Map (City DOT, 2010c) in order to determine safe and feasible routes to the Site and are outlined in the following paragraphs (see Figure 3.8-1). These routes will be subject to the final transportation permits granted at the time of construction since ongoing roadwork in the City may require alternate routes to be considered. In addition, potential routes of waterborne deliveries via barge traffic are also discussed.

Oversize/Overweight Truck Routes

Route No. 1

Vehicles traveling from points northwest of the Site will enter the City by way of the George Washington Bridge and take Exit 1C for I-87/Major Deegan Expressway toward Albany/Queens. Vehicles will keep left at the fork to continue toward I-87 South and stay on I-87 South until the exit for I-278 West toward the Triborough Bridge/Manhattan Queens. Vehicles will continue on I-278 West/BQE, until the exit for 31st Street/Astoria Boulevard/Interstate 278 Alternative. Vehicles should take a slight left at Grand Central

Parkway Entrance eastbound/Hoyt Avenue South. Vehicles should continue onto Astoria Boulevard South, make a left turn at Steinway Street, and another left at 20th Avenue. The main entrance to the ConEd Complex for deliveries during construction is located at 20th Avenue and 31st Street.

Route No. 2

Vehicles traveling from points southwest of the Site will take I-278 East toward the Goethals Bridge/Verrazano Bridge. Vehicles will continue on I-278 East/BQE and take Exit 44 for Astoria Boulevard West. Vehicles will turn right at Steinway Street and left at 20th Avenue. The main entrance to the ConEd Complex for deliveries during construction is located at 20th Avenue and 31st Street.

Route No. 3

Vehicles traveling from points north and northeast of the Site will take Route I-87 southbound. Vehicles will take the exit for I-278 West toward the Triborough Bridge/Manhattan Queens. Vehicles will continue on I-278 West/BQE until the exit for 31st Street/Astoria Boulevard/Interstate 278 Alternative. Vehicles should take a slight left at Grand Central Parkway Entrance eastbound/Hoyt Avenue South. Vehicles should continue onto Astoria Boulevard South, make a left turn at Steinway Street, and another left at 20th Avenue. The main entrance to the ConEd Complex for deliveries during construction is located at 20th Avenue and 31st Street.

Waterborne Deliveries

The largest components of the LCEP Equipment will almost exclusively be delivered by barge. AGC will utilize the A-10 waterfront facility, which supports fuel oil deliveries to the existing AGS Facility, to receive some components via barge delivery to the extent practical, but the majority of waterborne deliveries will be received at the ConEd A-12 dock or the AGS A-0 dock. Barge deliveries will be conducted by insured, licensed and certified transporters. The transporters of waterborne goods will adhere to all USCG regulations. The various deliveries or construction barges will be coordinated with the USCG and appropriate Port Authority representatives prior to arriving at the Site by the contractor providing the service. Barge traffic arriving from the north is anticipated to travel down the Hudson River or through Long Island Sound before meeting the East River. Barge traffic from the south will arrive into New York Bay and travel north up the East River.

3.8.1.6 Public Transportation

Due to its historic metropolitan character, the Site is well served by public transportation. It is anticipated that some portion of the construction workers and permanent operating employees will use public transportation to access the Site. Subway and bus stops within a mile of the ConEd Complex are listed in Tables 3.8.1.6-1 and 3.8.1.6-2 as commuters are not

likely to walk more than one mile to access the Site. The following subsections describe vicinity subways, bus routes, railways, airports, ferries, water taxis and bicycle paths.

Vicinity Subway Stations

The City Transit Subway system serves Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Staten Island. This comprehensive public transportation system consists of 26 interconnected subway routes (MTA, 2010a). The nearest subway station to the Site is the Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Station, which is approximately 0.9 miles from the Site and 0.3 miles from the entrance to the ConEd Complex. The Astoria-Ditmars station is the northern-most station on the MTA’s N and Q Lines and operates on a 24-hour basis.

Vicinity Bus Routes

There are three city bus routes in the vicinity of the Site (MTA, 2010b), as listed on Table 3.8-4. The nearest bus stop to the entrance of the ConEd Complex is at the intersection of 20th Avenue and 31st Street.

Table 3.8-4: Bus Stop Locations in the Vicinity of the Site Nearest Stop to Route Name Start End ConEd Complex Entrance Ditmars Boulevard and 69 – Ditmars Boulevard Long Island City Jackson Heights 31st Street 20th Avenue and 100 – 20th Avenue Long Island City Rikers Island 31st Street (limited stop) Hazen Street and 101 – Steinway Street Steinway, Queens Midtown, Manhattan 19th Avenue

Vicinity Rail Road Stations

The MTA Long Island Rail Road line in the vicinity of the Site runs between Penn Station and Jamaica, Queens (MTA, 2010c). The closest terminal to the Site is the Woodside Station, located at Roosevelt Avenue and 61st Street, which is approximately 2.4 miles south- southeast of the Site. The terminal is accessible via the #7 subway, and the Q32 bus.

Vicinity Airports

There are a total of three airports within the City metropolitan area. Table 3.8-5 lists the airports and their distance and direction from the Site.

Table 3.8-5: Airports in the Vicinity of the Site Distance from Direction from Airport ConEd Complex Entrance ConEd Complex Entrance J.F. Kennedy International Airport 11.6 miles Southeast LaGuardia Airport 1.5 miles East Newark Liberty International Airport 16 miles Southwest

Vicinity Bicycle Paths

20th Avenue, immediately in front of the ConEd Complex entrance, has a bicycle lane (designated as Class 2, two-way unless shown). The 2010 City Cycling Map shows several planned or proposed bicycle routes in and around Ralph DeMarco Park and Astoria Park immediately south of the ConEd Complex (City DOT, 2010c).

3.8.2 Pending Developments

Local pending developments are considered in conjunction with the proposed LCEP to assess potential cumulative impacts. The only proximate project in the vicinity of the Site is the proposed NRG Astoria Repowering Project on the ConEd Complex.

NRG plans to replace the existing NRG Astoria GTs, which are located south of the Site on the ConEd Complex. NRG submitted a DEIS to NYSDEC in accordance with SEQRA and was notified of the completeness determination on April 21, 2010 (NYSDEC, 2010f). The FEIS was submitted on September 22, 2010.

The Site construction activities will include truck deliveries that may occur concurrently with deliveries for the NRG project. The start date of the construction for NRG’s project has not been identified, nor has the duration or extent of construction traffic. To the extent that the construction of both projects occurs simultaneously, there is potential for trucks to be backed up on 20th Avenue. In the event that overlapping construction schedules occur between LCEP and NRG’s Astoria Repowering Project, AGC will coordinate with NRG to secure a local traffic director for both projects.

3.8.3 Potential Impacts

3.8.3.1 Construction

Construction of the LCEP Equipment is expected to take approximately 24 months. Equipment and construction materials will be delivered to the Site via large trucks and specialty vehicles. Vehicles will utilize the three preferred OS/OW routes identified in Section 3.8.1.5 to the maximum extent practicable. All required transportation permits will be sought well in advance of all desired movements of overweight/overdimensioned vehicles/loads. Transportation and delivery of materials will be conducted by licensed and insured haulers and will adhere to protocols as outlined in the OS/OW Vehicle Permit.

Over the course of construction, a total of approximately 250 to 300 vehicular trips per year will be required to deliver workers and the mechanical components to the Site. Concrete truck traffic is expected to peak between months 4 and 8 of construction and is likely to average approximately 10 to 20 concrete truck deliveries per day.

Peak employment is anticipated to occur between months 9 and 22 of the construction period and will consist of a peak of 250 to 350 employees on Site during any one quarter. At peak construction, the construction of the LCEP Equipment could generate as much as 100 vehicular roundtrips per day due to construction personnel. Workers will be encouraged to carpool or commute by public transportation during construction activities to further reduce any perceived impact. Even during the peak construction period it is anticipated that the Site related traffic can be absorbed by the local roadway system.

No roadway modifications or improvements will be required to accommodate construction vehicle traffic. Since the level of anticipated traffic activity is low enough to be easily absorbed by the existing local roadway network, and large equipment and construction materials will be delivered to the Site during non-rush hour or school hours, no impacts to the surrounding communities and to the local transportation network are projected due to construction volumes alone.

3.8.3.2 Barge Deliveries

Delivery of oversized materials via barges will be utilized to the maximum extent practicable in order to minimize any potential roadway traffic impacts in the vicinity of the Site. Barges are utilized for transporting No. 6 fuel oil to the existing AGS Facility. Approximately 30 to 50 barge trips will be required to deliver the mechanical components of the Project to the Site throughout the duration of construction. The transporters of waterborne goods will adhere to all USCG regulations. The various deliveries or construction barges will be coordinated with the USCG and appropriate Port Authority representatives prior to arriving at the Site by the contractor providing the service.

3.8.3.3 Operation

The LCEP Equipment will result in minimal additional traffic during normal operation. This would include the few new employees that may drive to work and the infrequent delivery of components and services to support the new equipment. The anticipated additional traffic is expected to average less than approximately 25 additional vehicles to the Site a day, most of which would be passenger cars. As such, minimal impacts are anticipated during operation of the LCEP Equipment.

Fuel oil for the existing AGS Facility is delivered by barges. Since natural gas will be utilized as the primary fuel with ULSD as a backup fuel, the SiemensCT is not anticipated to increase future barge fuel oil deliveries to the AGS Facility.

3.8.4 Mitigation

Significant traffic impacts due to equipment delivery will be minimized by the use of waterborne delivery. To the extent large equipment needs to be brought to the Site, movement would be scheduled to off-peak hours and would be coordinated with local officials to the extent any traffic control is necessary. The LCEP Equipment construction schedule is not expected to overlap with the first phase of the NRG Repowering Project, which is anticipated to begin in 2011 (NRG FEIS 2010). It is possible that Site construction may overlap with the second phase of the NRG Repowering Project (late 2013/early 2014, NRG FEIS 2010). In this event, AGC will coordinate with NRG to secure a local traffic coordinator for both projects. The objective of the local traffic coordinator will be to help with the flow of traffic and reduce potential traffic congestion along 20th Avenue and other roads in the vicinity of the ConEd Complex. Further, if necessary to alleviate local street congestion or parking constraints, AGC may arrange for part of its construction force to park off-site and then transport construction workers via bus to the Site. AGC will coordinate with NRG to secure a local traffic director for both projects if required.

Under Title 24 of the City Administrative Code (Section 24-120 et seq.) and Chapter 2 of 15 RCNY, regarding fuel burning equipment, AGS holds a Certificate of Operation issued by the DEP and renewed every three years. Construction and operation of the LCEP will require modification of the AGS Facility’s current triennial certificate.

Since the rules set out in 15 RCNY Chapter 2 are design specifications, approval of the modified certificate is ministerial and not discretionary. If NYSDEC approves the Title V Permit modification for the LCEP, thereafter AGC will apply to DEP for a modification of the AGS Facility’s Triennial Certificate of Operation, which application will include a design plan of the LCEP Equipment. The DEP will review and approve the plans after which AGC may proceed with construction. After construction is complete, a modified Certificate of Operation shall be issued by the DEP.

3.9 Socioeconomics

This section presents information on the existing conditions, potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures to socioeconomics due to the construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment. The LCEP Equipment and all associated interconnections occur within the Community District 1 (CD1) neighborhood in the Borough of Queens, Queens County, New York. The socioeconomic data is presented for three geographic areas: CD1, which consists of Astoria, Astoria Heights, Dutch Kills, part of Long Island City (which is also in CD2), Ravenswood, Rikers Island, and Steinway; Queens County; and all of New York State. The analysis presented in this section is based on the most current socioeconomic data available for these three distinct geographic areas. In the case of CD1, the most current data is from year 2000, as reported in the Queens CD1 report issued by the DCP (2008). The most current socioeconomic data for Queens County and New York State is from year 2008, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau (2008). The socioeconomic information is presented in terms of population, economy and employment, community facilities and services, and taxes. The potential economic and fiscal impacts due to the development and operation of the LCEP Equipment are discussed in Section 3.9.6.

3.9.1 Population and Housing Characteristics

Based on the 3-year American Community Survey, the population of Queens County was estimated to be 2,278,482 in 2008 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Between 1990 and 2000, Queens County’s population increased from 1,951,598 to 2,229,379, or approximately 14.2% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Between 1990 and 2000, the population of CD1 also increased from 188,549 to 211,220, or approximately 12% (DCP, 2010). The updated 2008 population data is not available for CD1.

Home ownership in CD1 in the year 2000 was 20.5% (DCP, 2010). This level is more than half of the home ownership rate in Queens County and New York State in the year 2008, 46.6% and 55.6% respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a,b). The relatively low percentage of home ownership coupled with the recent population increases suggests that CD1 may be limited with respect to affordable housing.

Currently, housing values in Queens County are moderate to high when compared to average values within New York State. The median housing value in Queens County is $492,200 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). This value is well above the statewide median value of $311,700 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b).

3.9.2 Demographic Characteristics of Astoria

Astoria is a vibrant, multi-cultural community. As indicated on Table 3.9-1, local residents are predominantly white (44%), Hispanic (28%) and Asian (19%). African American, Mixed Race, and Other comprise the remaining 13% of the population. A greater percentage of Whites, Hispanics, Asians, and Mixed Race individuals live in Astoria than in the entire City. In contrast, the percentage of African Americans is 19% lower in Astoria than in the entire City.

Table 3.9-1: Ethnicity in Long Island City-Astoria and New York City Ethnicity Long Island City-Astoria New York City White 44% 34% Hispanic 28% 27% Asian 15% 10% African American 6% 25% Mixed Race 6% 3% Other 1% 1% Source: City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2000, Community Health Profile – Long Island City-Astoria, Queens.

3.9.3 Economy and Employment

Approximately 30% of Queens County employment is attributed to management, professional, and related occupations. Other notable areas of employment include sales and office occupations

(26%), service occupations (23%), production, transportation, and material moving occupations (11%), and construction, extraction, maintenance and repair occupations (9%) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). According to the 2008 survey, median household income was approximately $54,950 for Queens County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). In comparison, the household income for all of New York State in 2008 was slightly greater at $55,401 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b). Median household income from CD1 was reported as $35,742 in 2000 (DCP, 2010). The 2006- 2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates indicate that household income increased approximately 28% in both Queens and all of New York State from 2000 to 2008 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a,b), which would equate to a CD1 median household income of $45,469. This estimate is consistent with the year 2000 difference in CD1 median household income to that of Queens (~20% less).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the unemployment rate in 2008 for Queens County was higher than for New York State with 7.1% and 6.3%, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a,b). The unemployment rate in 2000 for Queens County was 7.7% and 7.8% in CD1 (DCP, 2010).

The percentage of individuals below the poverty level in Queens County in 2008 was greater than for New York State with 14.6% and 13.8%, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a,b). In 2000, the percentage of the population below the poverty level in CD1 was 20.1% (DCP, 2010).

According to the Office of the Comptroller, Astoria area manufacturing has declined in recent years (Office of the State Comptroller, 2009). Between 2003 and 2008, approximately 3,800 manufacturing jobs were lost, although this sector still accounted for 14% of the area’s jobs in 2008, which was much greater than New York City as a whole (3%). While manufacturing declined during this time, education and health services gained 2,380 jobs, financial activities gained 2,190 jobs, and leisure and hospitality gained 1,020 jobs.

3.9.4 Municipal Budgets and Taxes

There are two taxes that directly apply to land used for power generation. The first is the City of New York Property Tax, which taxes the assessed value of all buildings, structures, and improvements as well as the underlying property. The second direct tax is the utility tax, which is imposed on every utility vendor of utility services holding property and doing business in the City. The City utility tax is a monthly assessment of 2.35% of the gross income each month (City Department of Finance, 2010a). Both taxes are paid to the City of New York. Separate tax at the Queens County level is not levied. Instead, Queens County receives a disbursement of the revenue collected by the City.

In addition to these taxes, the City levies an 8.875% total sales tax on purchases made in the City. Of this sales tax, New York State retains 4%, the City retains 4.5%, and the remainder is a Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District surcharge of 0.375% (City Department of Finance, 2010b).

3.9.5 Existing AGS Facility

The AGS Facility was built by ConEd and has been operating within the community for over 50 years. In late 1999, the AGS Facility was sold by ConEd, and after several ownership changes, was purchased by US Power Generating Company in 2006. The AGS Facility currently employs approximately 140 persons. In addition to staff payroll, a review of the local expenditures by AGC indicates that over $10 million is spent annually by AGC with local merchants, vendors, and contractors. It is anticipated that once improved by the LCEP, AGC will continue to spend approximately the same annually.

3.9.6 Potential Impacts

The LCEP will have both direct and indirect positive economic effects, commencing during the construction phase and continuing throughout the economic life of the LCEP Equipment. In the short term, the benefits of Project construction will include additional employment and income stemming from jobs in the various construction trades that will be required to build the LCEP Equipment. In the long term, the LCEP will provide an array of direct and indirect economic benefits. It will generate additional revenue for the City through additional tax payments based on the increased value of the AGS Facility and enhance energy reliability to the City during peak load conditions. The socioeconomic impacts of the LCEP on population and housing, employment and income, and community facilities and services are described in the following sections.

3.9.6.1 Population, Housing, Real Estate Values

Construction of the LCEP Equipment is not expected to have any significant impact on area population. The LCEP Equipment construction will require up to approximately 250 to 350 temporary construction workers at the peak of activity. This labor force will be made up largely of workers who reside within the City, including Queens, and travel to job sites as the work requires. Full-time employment for the completed Project is estimated at 25 to 30 new employees. These permanent employees are likely to reside in the local area. Existing housing stock in the area can easily accommodate this number of workers and their families.

Concerns are often expressed regarding the potential impact of electrical generation projects on real estate value. As described in Section 3.14, the property on which the LCEP Equipment will be located and the majority of the surrounding properties are zoned as a Manufacturing District, M3-1 (See Figure 3.14-2). The Site is also currently in use as an electric generation facility. The LCEP Equipment may be constructed “as-of-right” pursuant to Article IV of the City Zoning Resolution since the Manufacturing District (M3-1) zone allows electric power or steam generation plants as permitted uses. These conditions make it unlikely that surrounding industrial properties will decrease in value due to the construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment. Rather, local industrial property values may actually increase due to the improved local infrastructure (power supply) and lower community emissions.

3.9.6.2 Potential Construction Impacts

Expenditures

Construction of the LCEP Equipment will result in an expenditure of more than $700 million, of which more than 30% is expected to be spent in the local New York Metropolitan Area. The approximately $225 million in local expenditures is expected to generate approximately $375 million in additional secondary, economic activity in the area. This estimate of additional economic activity was calculated by applying the output multiplier (1.66).15 While this multiplier has some limitations, it is reasonable to assume half again as much economic activity due to the local expenditures.

Taxes

The LCEP will have a positive impact on City and state collection of sales taxes revenues. The Borough of Queens will benefit indirectly through the disbursement of tax receipts for program support. Sales tax revenues are collected by the City of New York and the State of New York. In total, construction of the LCEP Equipment is expected to generate sales and business taxes, which will be divided between the State and the City of New York. AGC may be able to qualify for local, state and federal tax incentives which may offset a portion of the estimated tax for the LCEP.

Employment and Income

Labor expenditures for construction of the LCEP Equipment are expected to be over $50 million. The majority of this labor cost is expected to be paid to labor provided from Queens County. In addition to local temporary jobs, the community will also benefit from additional direct non-payroll expenditures in the New York Metropolitan Area over the 24-month construction period.

3.9.6.3 Potential Operation Impacts

Taxes

Operation of the LCEP Equipment may have several tax implications. First, the modified AGS Facility will be subject to a new tax appraisal and assessment for purposes of determining assessed valuation and property taxes. The new appraisal will likely increase the value of the AGS Facility, which could result in higher taxes to be paid to the City of New York. The amount of the increase cannot be determined at this time. In addition, AGC may be able to qualify for local, state and federal tax incentives which may offset a portion of the estimated tax for the operation of the LCEP Equipment.

The City will also benefit from the utility tax. The utility tax is levied based on the gross income of a facility on a monthly basis. The LCEP Equipment will not only increase the capacity to provide power more efficiently, it is anticipated that the LCEP Equipment will also

15 http://www.aem.cornell.edu/faculty_sites/nlb4/publications/pirlu/vol9n2.pdf

generate greater revenues through the utility tax. The extent of increased revenues cannot be determined at this time, particularly given the nature of the competitive energy market in New York State. However, it is expected that the City would realize a tax benefit from the LCEP.

Employment and Income

Once the LCEP Equipment is operational, it is expected to require additional full-time staff of 25 to 30 employees. The total annual payroll for this additional workforce is estimated to be over $3,000,000 per year. In addition to direct payroll, AGC currently expends over $10 million in operating, maintenance, and operation costs each year in the local community on goods and services. It is expected that the local expenditure will continue to be in this range and possibly higher due to the new equipment.

No ancillary or indirect job creation is expected as a result of operation of the LCEP. Indirect job creation would typically occur for a new facility where an influx of new workers would create additional economic activity in the immediate area.

Electricity Pricing

The LCEP Equipment is expected to operate as an intermediate duty facility. It is expected that the LCEP Equipment will run during the workday and more frequently during the summer cooling season. The LCEP Equipment will also be available to rapidly start and quickly respond to changes in the electric system providing fast response typically unavailable from larger electric generating facilities.

Prices paid to generators of electricity during peak demand times are generally higher than during normal demand periods because less efficient (more expensive) generating units are needed to meet the demand requirements. When the LCEP Equipment operates it will displace higher cost generation, resulting in lower average costs to produce electricity. Since the LCEP Equipment will produce approximately 410 MW of electrical output in an electric system with more than 10,000 MW of generation capacity, the LCEP Equipment, by itself, will not have a significant effect on the overall cost to produce electricity. The actual price paid by an electric customer is established by the local utility, not the generator of the electricity, and is based in part on the cost of the supply from the generator. Since the cost of supply will not be materially different, the cost to the customer will not be materially different.

3.9.7 Proposed Mitigation

The LCEP Equipment has several features that provide positive socioeconomic benefits to CD1, Queens County, and the City. These benefits will be realized in terms of increased permanent workforce, improved infrastructure to further economic development, increased demand for local services during construction, increased tax revenues, enhanced aesthetics, and air quality improvements. As such, no additional mitigation is proposed.

3.10 Environmental Justice

This section of the DEIS includes a qualitative description of existing environmental burdens on the Potential Environmental Justice Area (PEJA), Health Outcome Data (HOD) Analysis for emergency department visits for asthma and cancer rates in the project vicinity versus three comparison areas,, and an evaluation of the potential for additional burden due to any significant adverse environmental impact from the LCEP.

3.10.1 Regulatory Background

On March 19, 2003, the NYSDEC Commissioner issued Commissioner Policy CP-29 providing guidance for incorporating Environmental Justice (EJ) concerns into NYSDEC’s permitting process. The policy requires NYSDEC to identify a PEJA based on demographic census data (income and ethnicity). The NYSDEC has designated Astoria as a PEJA. A breakdown of Astoria’s ethnicity information, along with other demographics is provided in Section 3.9. Once a PEJA is identified as a host community, two phases follow: (1) public outreach and participation for the community, and (2) preparation of an EJ analysis as part of the SEQRA process.

3.10.1.1 Public Outreach and Participation

The LCEP is being reviewed under SEQRA, with the NYSDEC acting as Lead Agency. One of the main objectives of SEQRA is to provide the opportunity for the local community to provide input in the scoping of the DEIS, review SEQRA documents and provide comments, and participate in SEQRA hearings on the potential environmental impacts of the project. As such, AGC has made a concerted effort to actively engage the local community throughout the SEQRA process by actively soliciting input and ideas, and holding several community meetings.

Undertaking any activity requiring a permit in a PEJA triggers the obligation on the part of an applicant to pursue an enhanced public participation program. AGC prepared a comprehensive and proactive Public Participation Plan, and submitted the plan to the NYSDEC with the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) on January 26, 2010. This plan was reviewed by the EJ16 and community17 specialists at the NYSDEC Region 2 office. The Public Participation Plan was made widely available to the public by mail and email, on the Project website, at the public repositories in local libraries, at the Community Board office, and at the public information meetings. The plan contained commitments for AGC to undertake significant public outreach and preparation of a public contact list, widely disseminate information, prepare fact sheets, hold public meetings, take comments continually throughout the SEQRA review process, and provide periodic progress reports summarizing public outreach activities to date, Project status, and responses to questions and comments received. All Project documents are available through the Project website, and at public repositories in local libraries and the CB1 office. Comments were encouraged to be provided at public meetings, by mail, through the website, or via the established hotline.

16 Michelle Moore of NYSDEC Region 2 is the LCEP’s EJ Specialist 17 Thomas Panzone of NYSDEC Region 2 is the LCEP’s Community Specialist

While comprehensive at the outset, the Public Participation Plan called for flexibility to reflect the ongoing needs and comments from the community. For example, the public contact list has been modified as more interested parties are identified by AGC through attendance at public meetings, requests through the Project website, or other opportunities to sign up on mailing lists, or were identified by the NYSDEC to AGC. The current Public Participation Plan (November, 2010) is attached hereto as Appendix E, which also includes copies of the Project progress reports disseminated thus far. The NYSDEC provided a letter, dated December 29, 2010, which indicated approval of the plan and is provided in Appendix B. As is evidenced by the public notices, documents and information provided to the community with respect to the LCEP, and the myriad of meetings with the broader public and many community-based organizations and elected officials, AGC has undertaken a significant community outreach program and has answered all questions posed, whether during the public meetings or on its extensive website. AGC has also offered to provide translation assistance if requested by community members, reflecting AGC’s recognition of the multi-cultural nature of the community.

3.10.1.2 Preparation of an Environmental Justice Analysis

The second phase, preparing an EJ analysis, is not necessarily mandatory. If it is determined that the LCEP will have at least one potentially significant adverse impact on the PEJA, then an EIS must be prepared. As part of the EIS, CP-29 requires the project proponent to “describe the existing environmental burden” on the PEJA and “evaluate the additional burden,” if any, that might occur as a result of the LCEP.

As fully discussed in the Project description and throughout the analyses presented in this DEIS, the LCEP is designed to result in a modification that will incorporate conditions that

limit the overall facility-wide operations, and result in a substantial net decreases in NOX and

CO emissions, as well as reductions in PM, PM10 and H2SO4 emissions compared to the current existing facility baseline. The emissions of other pollutants will either be reduced slightly or remain unchanged. AGC believes it is important not only to seek meaningful public participation in the decision-making process, but also to provide the community with an in- depth study of all potential impacts associated with the LCEP, in order to demonstrate that the LCEP will, in fact, be an environmental benefit rather than an additional burden. As required by CP-29, AGC prepared a Scoping Document for public review and comment, which outlined the studies and analyses that were going to be undertaken for the EIS. NYSDEC held a public meeting on September 20, 2010, to take comments on the scope. AGC incorporated all the comments and the Final Scope of Work was approved by NYSDEC and made publicly available on November 10, 2010. The final Scoping Document approved by NYSDEC is attached as Appendix F. Also as required by CP-29, other involved and interested City and state agencies are receiving all technical and information documents regarding the LCEP as part of the “coordinated review” process under SEQRA.

3.10.2 Existing Conditions

The LCEP Equipment will occupy approximately 10.1 acres of the larger ConEd Complex, which is bounded on the north and west by the East River, to the east by Luyster (Steinway) Creek and 37th Street, and to the south by 20th Avenue. The Site is located approximately 2,400 feet to the northeast of the Existing AGS Units and 3,200 feet to the north northeast of the entrance to the ConEd Complex.

The ConEd Complex occupies approximately 318 acres and has been the site of energy production activities since the late 19th century. The ConEd Complex is located in the Astoria community of Queens, New York, which is comprised of approximately 47,000 people (see Section 3.9). The NYSDEC has identified a PEJA within a 2-mile radius of the Site (Figure 3.10-1). Therefore, this DEIS evaluated the proposed LCEP based on the guidelines and recommendations provided in NYSDEC CP-29 for EJ.

3.10.2.1 LCEP Vicinity Environmental Quality

As discussed in Section 3.10.1, in this instance CP-29 requires a description of the existing environmental burden of the Astoria community, and an analysis of whether any additional burden will be caused by the LCEP.

The ConEd Complex has been an industrial site since 1899, when the Astoria Light, Heat and Power Company acquired the land and constructed a manufactured gas plant that began operation in 1903 to supply the expanding fuel (gas) needs of the New York metropolitan area. The facility was developed in order to replace the existing manufactured gas plants across the East River in the more heavily populated Borough of Manhattan. As a result, the environmental quality of the Astoria community has been affected by industrial activity for well over 100 years.

There are numerous industrial facilities in the vicinity of the Site that contribute to the existing air quality conditions in the community, including the NRG and the NYPA electric generating facility (also located on the ConEd Complex) and the Astoria Energy Plant across Luyster Creek from the Site. The DEP also operates the Bowery Bay Wastewater treatment facility that is to the east of the ConEd Complex and adjacent to the Astoria Energy Plant, a correctional facility on Rikers Island, and the Wards Island wastewater treatment plant. In addition to the local industry, the community is bisected by the Grand Central Parkway. This major roadway is heavily traveled and is adjacent to the residential section of the community. The traffic, both from cars and trucks along the Grand Central Parkway, Astoria and Ditmars Boulevards, 31st Street, and other major local roads, as well as marine traffic along the waterfront, contributes significantly to the environmental conditions in the area. Of greatest

concern are air emissions, particularly NOX, which contribute to the formation of smog, and

fine particulates (PM2.5), which have been shown to exacerbate respiratory ailments, including asthma. Recent studies report that traffic pollution raises asthma risk in children (Salam et al., 2007) and in extreme cases, long-term exposure can lead to DNA damage (Lai,

2005). Background information on the potential human health impacts that may result from criteria pollutants is described in Section 3.4.2.

As indicated on Figure 3.10-2, a number of point sources of air emissions exist in the vicinity of the Site, as well as Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (known as Superfund) sites; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act generators, transporters, and treatment, storage and/or disposal sites; and Toxics Release Inventory reporters. Facilities or sites, within 2-miles of the Site, which contribute to the environmental character of the area are summarized in Table 3.10-1.

Table 3.10-1: State and Federal Permitted/Regulated Sources in the Vicinity of the Site Number of Sources within State and Federal Permitted/Regulated Sources 2-miles of the Site Air Major1 10 Air Minor1 145a Air Synthetic Minor1 32 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 1 Liability Act (“Superfund”)1 Permit Compliance System Pipe (Water Discharge Permit)1 19 Permit Compliance System NPDES Major1 5 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Regulated Facilities1 34b TRIS Toxic Release Inventory Reporter1 19 Sources: U.S. EPA, Region 2 Facility GIS Data, 2006. Notes: a. Permitted Air Minor sources consist largely of local auto body repair shops and dry cleaners. b. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Regulated Facilities consist largely of local auto body repair shops, dry cleaners, schools, municipal facilities and other miscellaneous industry.

As indicated on Table 3.10-1, the environmental quality in a 2-mile radius from the Site is characteristic of a historic, highly industrial waterfront area.

3.10.2.2 Health Outcome Data Analysis

NYSDEC issued Commissioner Policy-29, Environmental Justice and Permitting (CP-29) in March 2003. CP-29 established a requirement and process under NYSDEC permitting guidelines to address environmental justice concerns relating to disproportionate adverse environmental impacts. NYSDEC established two work groups to assist in the development and incorporation of environmental justice data into its environmental review process: Disproportionate Adverse Environmental Impact Work Group and the Health Outcome Data Work Group (HOD). The HOD Work Group issued a report with recommendations for NYSDEC to guide the health outcome data analysis process by identifying available health outcome data and developing a method to present health outcome data for use in NYSDEC’s

permit process. The report, Report of the Health Outcome Data Work Group (2006 HOD Report), was used to guide the analysis presented below.

In addition to the 2006 HOD Report, New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) issued a document entitled, Revised Guide for Health Outcome Data Review and Analysis Relating to NYSDEC Environmental Justice and Permitting, Draft 2/7/11, that refined the earlier established protocols for the display and analysis of health outcome data for use in NYSDEC’s permit review process. The revised guidance provided specifics for the creation of health outcome data displays and analyses for the Health Outcome Data Review and Analysis section of the Environmental Impact Statement. According to NYSDEC and NYSDOH, once a proposed project receives a positive SEQRA declaration and may impact a minority or low- income community, an assessment of the impacts of the proposed action on the health of the community is warranted.

The New York State guidance documents specify a method for comparing the health status of a community of concern (COC) to that of other communities (i.e. comparison areas). According to the 2011 NYSDOH guidance document, the COC is defined as, an area whose population is likely to be affected by at least one potentially significant adverse environmental and/or human health impact related to a proposed action, for which a permit application has been submitted. Comparison areas are defined areas that are compared to the COC to assess relative differences in health outcome data. The COC for the LCEP is defined based upon project location: Astoria, Queens, New York. In consultation with NYSDEC and in accordance with State guidance documents, AGC performed a health outcome data analysis by performing the following steps:

1. Define the Community of Concern – based on project location, in this case defined by the project location area zip code.

2. Establish comparison areas – The 2011 NYSDOH guidance contains six (6) options for determining valid comparison areas for the HOD analysis.

3. Compile demographic data from the U.S. Census – The U.S. Census is in the process of rolling out 2010 Census data via its New American FactFinder online data search application. The 2010 data rollout began in February 2011 with relatively small sets of summary level data and will proceed throughout the year. The datasets needed to complete this analysis per the 2011 NYSDOH guidance - U.S. Census Summary Files 1 and 3 – for 2010 are not available at this time. Hence, 2000 U.S. Census data are used for this HOD analysis.

4. Compile health outcome data from the NYSDOH Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) and the New York State Cancer Registry. As stated in the 2011 NYSDOH guidance, Emergency Department Visits for Asthma are now available from SPARCS, and these data were used in this analysis. Cancer incidence for male and female colorectal, female breast, male and female lung and bronchus, and male prostate cancer from the New York State Cancer Registry.

SPARCS data are presented for age groups, 0-4, 0-17, 18-64, 65+ and total for all ages. Occurrence rates per 10,000 population are calculated. A rate ratio or Standard Incidence Ratio (SIR) for age adjusted data for each primary health outcome is calculated (i.e. the ratio of the rate in the COC to rate in the comparison population). In addition to the SIR, 95% confidence intervals are calculated to understand the similarity of the differences between the COC and comparison area rates. If the 95% confidence intervals (CI) do not include 1, then it is likely that the difference between the rates is not due to random variability in the rates. This method is spelled out in the 2011 NYSDOH guidance which also included Microsoft Excel Worksheets with preprogrammed formulas, which were used for this HOD analysis.

5. Analyze and discuss the differences between HOD for the COC and the comparison areas. The SIR or rate ratio indicates whether the COC has a higher or lower rate than the comparison area, and the 95% confidence interval provides a better understanding the similarity of the differences between the COC and comparison area rates. If the SIR is greater than 1.0 and the confidence interval does not include 1, then the rate of the health outcome is higher in the COC than the comparison areas and the difference is statistically significant or the difference between the rates is most likely not due to random variation. In this scenario, the health status of the COC should be given consideration in NYSDEC regulatory permitting evaluations.

Defining the Community of Concern

The LCEP is located in zip code 11105. This zip code includes the ConEd Complex and the surrounding area bounded by 20th Avenue south to 24th Avenue/Astoria Boulevard.

Table 3.10-2 Demographic Profile of Community of Concern and Comparison Areas, 2000 U.S. Census

Similar Zip Codes 11105 (COC) (+ 10% Population Queens Co., NY New York City, NY Density of 11105) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total Population1 42,117 328,732 2,229,379 8,008,278

Land area (mi2) 1.59 12.42

Population/mi2 26,543 26,468 20,409 26,403

No. of Households2 16,982 121,213 782,646 3,022,477

Sex1

Male 20,934 49.7 156,769 47.7 1,073,568 48.2 3,794,204 47.4

Female 21,183 50.3 171,963 52.3 1,155,811 51.8 4,214,074 52.6

Age Distribution1

<5 2,198 5.2 20,698 6.3 142,716 6.4 540,878 6.8

5 - 14 3,935 9.4 39,623 12.1 283,989 12.7 1,091,931 13.6

15 - 19 2,126 5.0 19,387 5.9 137,692 6.2 520,641 6.5

Similar Zip Codes 11105 (COC) (+ 10% Population Queens Co., NY New York City, NY Density of 11105) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 20 - 44 19,272 45.8 131,456 40.0 897,264 40.2 3,221,132 40.2

45 - 64 8,761 20.8 72,540 22.1 484,676 21.7 1,695,839 21.2

65+ 5,825 13.8 45,028 13.7 283,042 12.7 937,857 11.7

Race/Ethnicity1

One race 38,478 91.4 308,339 93.8 2,093,209 93.9 7,614,319 95.1

White 29,469 70.0 172,262 52.4 982,725 44.1 3,576,385 44.7

African-American 816 1.9 26,015 7.9 446,189 20.0 2,129,672 26.6

American Indian/Alaskan 139 0.3 1,349 0.4 11,077 0.5 41,289 0.5

Asian 4,437 10.5 65,948 20.1 391,500 17.6 787,047 9.8

Hawaiian/Pacific 36 0.1 241 0.1 1,331 0.1 5,430 0.1 Islander

Some Other Race 3,581 8.5 42,524 12.9 260,387 11.7 1,074,406 13.4

Two or More Races 3,639 8.6 20,393 6.2 136,170 6.1 393,959 4.9

Total Minority 12,648 30.0 156,470 47.6 1246654.0 55.9 4431803.0 55.3 (Race)1

Hispanic or Latino 8,525 20.2 81,959 24.9 556,605 25.0 2,160,554 27.0

Not Hispanic or Latino - 25,114 59.6 137,740 41.9 732,895 32.9 2,801,267 35.0 White Alone

Total Minority 17,003 40.4 190,992 58.1 1,496,484 67.1 5,207,011 65.0 (Race/Ethnicity)1*

Income2

Median household 38,674 42,957 42,439 38,293 income 1999 ($)**

Persons below poverty 6,785 16.2 45,490 14.1 321,102 14.6 1,668,938 21.2 1999

Persons above poverty 35,146 278,012 1,882,204 6,185,592 1999

Total Population3 41,931 323,502 2,203,306 7,854,530 * Total Minority as defined by the New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation Commissioner's Policy 29: African-American, American Indian/Alaskan, Asian, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, Two or More Races, and the ethnicity Hispanic or Latino. It is calculated by subtracting the Not Hispanic or Latino - White Alone from the Total Population. ** The Similar Zip Codes Median household income 1999 is weighted average. 1. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 1 (SF-1). 2. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 3 (SF-3). 3. Sum of persons above and below poverty. Poverty status is not determined for groups such as students living in dorms, military personnel, prisoners and other institutionalized persons.

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, zip code 11105 has a population of 42,117 (Tables 3.10- 2 and 3.10-3). It encompasses a land area of approximately 1.59 square miles. The population density for this zip code is 26,543 people per square mile. The race/ethnicity

population make-up is 70% white and 30% nonwhite. The ‘Total Minority’, which is defined by CP-29 as African-American, American Indian/Alaskan, Asian, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, Tow or More Races, and Hispanic or Latino, is 40.4% for the 11105 zip code area. Outside of the ConEd Complex, which occupies the northern portion of Astoria, the remainder of the area is characterized as urban with a typical variety of commercial and residential use types (single and multi- family housing, stores, service businesses, etc.) commingled throughout. Median household income for the zip code (1999) was $38,674 with the greater proportion of the population (approximately 84%) living above poverty.

As mentioned above in Section 3.10, NYSDEC has designated Astoria as a Potentially Environmental Justice Area (PEJA). CP-29 directs NYSDEC to make a PEJA determination based on the minority and poverty levels for block groups of census tracts. Census tracts can be smaller than zip codes and are designed to be permanent statistical areas, homogeneous with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions. Census tract size varies widely depending on the density of settlement. The LCEP is located within Queens County Census Track 107, which encompasses the ConEd Complex and immediately surrounding industrial area. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, only 119 persons in 44 households are accounted for in this census tract. In consideration of the fact that the area associated with zip code 11105 contains a census population of 42,117, the data associated with Census Tract 107 may not be accurately demonstrable of area’s population within respect to race/ethnicity or poverty status. Therefore, based on the zip code-level demographic data, for the COC and comparison areas, Astoria does not meet the minority population (51.1%) and poverty thresholds (23.59%) established by NYSDEC and CP-29. Despite this finding, AGC is committed to developing an appropriate health outcome data analysis to support public outreach and education efforts regarding the LCEP.

Establishing Comparison Areas Using U.S. Census Bureau Demographic Data

Three comparison areas for this analysis were selected in accordance with the 2006 HOD Report and the draft 2011 guidance document. These areas provide the context for evaluating the data in the COC (Zip Code Area: 11105). The three comparison areas selected are identified below:

1. Areas with population density similar to that of the COC and located within the same county: Zip Codes 11354, 11375, 11385, 11417, 11428, 11432.

2. The county in which the COC is located: Queens County.

3. Large, regional comparison area: New York City.

Table 3.10-3 Health Outcome Data Analysis Demographic Profile of Community of Concern and Comparison Areas Table with Comparison Zip Codes Data Shown Similar Zip Codes 11105 (COC) 11354 11375 11385 11417 11428 11432 (+10% Population Queens County, NY New York City, NY Density of 11105) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total Population1 42,117 54,329 70,204 70,204 28,607 21,023 57,045 328,732 2,229,379 8,008,278 Land area (mi2) 1.59 2.21 2.43 2.43 1.10 0.84 2.20 12.42 Population/mi2 26,543 24,583 28,891 28,891 26,006 25,027 25,930 26,468 20,409 26,403 No. of Households2 16,982 19,811 33,284 34,810 9,238 5,959 18,111 121,213 782,646 3,022,477 Sex1 Male 20,934 49.7 25,558 47.0 32,481 46.3 47,330 48.5 13,893 48.6 10,038 47.7 27,469 48.2 156,769 47.7 1,073,568 48.2 3,794,204 47.4 Female 21,183 50.3 28,771 53.0 37,723 53.7 50,194 51.5 14,714 51.4 10,985 52.3 29,576 51.8 171,963 52.3 1,155,811 51.8 4,214,074 52.6 Age Distribution1 <5 2,198 5.2 2,999 5.5 3,262 4.6 7,073 7.3 2,085 7.3 1,424 6.8 3,855 6.8 20,698 6.3 142,716 6.4 540,878 6.8 5 - 14 3,935 9.4 5,589 10.3 5,687 8.1 13,984 14.3 3,968 13.9 3,215 15.3 7,180 12.6 39,623 12.1 283,989 12.7 1,091,931 13.6 15 - 19 2,126 5.0 2,912 5.4 2,727 3.9 6,332 6.5 1,843 6.4 1,579 7.5 3,994 7.0 19,387 5.9 137,692 6.2 520,641 6.5 20 - 44 19,272 45.8 20,930 38.5 27,189 38.7 40,044 41.1 11,804 41.3 8,183 38.9 23,306 40.9 131,456 40.0 897,264 40.2 3,221,132 40.2 45 - 64 8,761 20.8 12,593 23.2 17,641 25.1 19,281 19.8 5,802 20.3 4,887 23.2 12,336 21.6 72,540 22.1 484,676 21.7 1,695,839 21.2 65+ 5,825 13.8 9,306 17.1 13,698 19.5 10,810 11.1 3,105 10.9 1,735 8.3 6,374 11.2 45,028 13.7 283,042 12.7 937,857 11.7 Race/Ethnicity1 One race 38,478 91.4 52,017 95.7 67,883 96.7 92,934 95.3 25,307 88.5 18,718 89.0 51,480 90.2 308,339 93.8 2,093,209 93.9 7,614,319 95.1 White 29,469 70.0 22,387 41.2 50,057 71.3 63,729 65.3 14,991 52.4 5,626 26.8 15,472 27.1 172,262 52.4 982,725 44.1 3,576,385 44.7 African-American 816 1.9 2,404 4.4 1,727 2.5 2,033 2.1 1,177 4.1 5,477 26.1 13,197 23.1 26,015 7.9 446,189 20.0 2,129,672 26.6 American Indian/Alaskan 139 0.3 105 0.2 84 0.1 332 0.3 240 0.8 192 0.9 396 0.7 1,349 0.4 11,077 0.5 41,289 0.5 Asian 4,437 10.5 23,519 43.3 14,075 20.0 6,090 6.2 3,948 13.8 4,351 20.7 13,965 24.5 65,948 20.1 391,500 17.6 787,047 9.8 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 36 0.1 35 0.1 35 0.0 43 0.0 27 0.1 30 0.1 71 0.1 241 0.1 1,331 0.1 5,430 0.1 Some Other Race 3,581 8.5 3,567 6.6 1,905 2.7 20,707 21.2 4,924 17.2 3,042 14.5 8,379 14.7 42,524 12.9 260,387 11.7 1,074,406 13.4 Two or More Races 3,639 8.6 2,312 4.3 2,321 3.3 4,590 4.7 3,300 11.5 2,305 11.0 5,565 9.8 20,393 6.2 136,170 6.1 393,959 4.9 Total Minority (Race)1 12,648 30.0 31,942 58.8 20,147 28.7 33,795 34.7 13,616 47.6 15,397 73.2 41,573 72.9 156,470 47.6 1246654.0 55.9 4431803.0 55.3 Hispanic or Latino 8,525 20.2 10,260 18.9 7,147 10.2 37,003 37.9 8,037 28.1 5,103 24.3 14,409 25.3 81,959 24.9 556,605 25.0 2,160,554 27.0 Not Hispanic or Latino - 25,114 59.6 16,794 30.9 45,254 64.5 50,616 51.9 11,529 40.3 3,530 16.8 10,017 17.6 137,740 41.9 732,895 32.9 2,801,267 35.0 White Alone Total Minority 17,003 40.4 37,535 69.1 24,950 35.5 46,908 48.1 17,078 59.7 17,493 83.2 47,028 82.4 190,992 58.1 1,496,484 67.1 5,207,011 65.0 (Race/Ethnicity)1* Income2 Median household income 38,674 37,155 51,350 36,434 42,889 55,219 42,414 42,957 42,439 38,293 1999 ($)** Persons below poverty 1999 6,785 16.2 8,603 16.4 6,927 9.9 16,651 17.1 3,520 12.5 1,675 8.0 8,114 15.0 45,490 14.1 321,102 14.6 1,668,938 21.2 Persons above poverty 1999 35,146 43,923 63,250 80,805 24,682 19,285 46,067 278,012 1,882,204 6,185,938 Total Population3 41,931 52,526 70,177 97,456 28,202 20,960 54,181 323,502 2,203,306 7,854,530 * Total Minority as defined by the New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation Commissioner's Policy 29: African-American, American Indian/Alaskan, Asian, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, Two or More Races, and the ethnicity Hispanic or Latino. It is calculated by subtracting the Not Hispanic or Latino - White Alone from the Total Population. ** The Similar Zip Codes Median household income 1999 is weighted average. 1. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 1 (SF-1). 2. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 3 (SF-3). 3. Sum of persons above and below poverty. Poverty status is not determined for groups such as students living in dorms, military personnel, prisoners and other institutionalized persons.

The population densities of the six (6) Queens County zip codes similar population densities to that of the COC ranged from a low density of 24,583 persons per square mile for zip code 11354 to a high density of 28,891 for zip code 11375 (Table 3.10-3). The total population for the six comparison zip code areas is 328,732. Sex and age distribution in these comparison areas correlated well to the COC although it seems as if the population in the COC is made up of slightly older people, by cohort, than the comparison areas. Total Minority populations exceeded the 51.1% state threshold in four out of the six zip code areas; zip codes 11375 and 11385 reported 35.5% and 48.1% Total Minority, respectively.

With respect to racial and ethnicity composition of the subject areas, the 2000 U.S. Census collects data related to the respondent’s Spanish/Hispanic/Latino ethnicity as well as race. The 2011 NYSDOH guidance document contains instructions on how to present demographic data describing race and ethnicity population segments within the COC and comparison areas. NYSDEC CP-29 defines minority population as one that is identified or recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau as Hispanic, African American or Black, Asian and Pacific Islander or American Indian. Tables 3.10-2 and 3.10-3 contain data results for “Total Minority (Race)” and “Total Minority (Race/Ethnicity)”. Total Minority (Race) is determined by subtracting the White population from the total population. Total Minority (Race/Ethnicity) is determined by subtracting the Not Hispanic or Latino – White Alone population from the total population. These data points are presented to illustrate the difference between the racial composition and the racial/ethnic composition of the COC and comparison areas.

The COC and all the comparison areas fell below the 23.59% state threshold for low-income according to 2000 Census data for ‘Persons below poverty (1999)’. The weighted household average income in the COC was $38,674 and for the six comparison zip codes was $42,957. The number of persons below the poverty line in 1999 within the COC was 6,785 and within the six comparison zip codes was $45,490. The data and related statistics from the 2000 U.S. Census are summarized in Tables 3.10-2 and 3.10-3.

Health Outcome Displays for the COC and the Comparison Areas

Health outcome data for the COC and Comparison Areas were compiled and analyzed from two sources, as discussed above: SPARCS and NYS Cancer Registry. These data are presented in Tables 3.10-4 and 3.10-5.

SPARCS Emergency Department (ED) Visit data for the COC shows a rate of events of 48.4 per ten thousand population. The highest rate group is the 0-4 years at 138.1 per ten thousand. The comparison zip code areas show a rate of 63.9 per ten thousand for the total population, while the high rate group is the 0-4 years at 227.5 per ten thousand. Rates ranged from 30.5 to 227.5 per ten thousand for the four-age distribution groups. The rate ratios comparing the COC to the comparison zip codes ranged from 0.61 to 0.92 with a total rate ratio 0.79. These data were also compared to the Queens County as a whole and to New York City data. The overall rate ratio was 0.68 for the

COC compared to Queens County (0.54 – 0.81 for age groups) and 0.39 for the COC compared to New York City (0.35 to 0.48 for age groups).

The NYS Cancer Registry presents cancer data by zip code by the number of observed and expected cases. The number of expected cases is calculated in each zip code by assuming the cancer rate is the same as the rate for New York State. There is a built-in comparison for each area within New York and the COC cannot be compared directly to the comparison areas, Queens County or New York City, as a result. NYS Cancer Registry data shows SIRs ranging from 0.48 to 1.02 for different cancer types in the COC. The colorectal cancer SIR in males of 1.02 has a 95% CI Range from 0.77 to 1.31. SIRs exceed 1 for colorectal cancer in males in the COC, comparison Queens County zip codes and New York City and for colorectal cancer in females in comparison Queens County zip codes. The 95% CI ranges were generally broader and close to or included 1 for the COC, and much narrower for the comparison areas, Queens County, and New York City.

In the COC, cancer incidence for prostate cancer, breast cancer and female lung/bronchus cancer was 15% to 50% below expected. Female colorectal cancer rates in the COC were more than 50% below expected. Male colorectal and lung/bronchus cancer incidences were both within 15% of expect rates for all of New York State. NYSDOH cancer education information suggests that the most significant colorectal cancer risk factors are considered to be age, heredity, diet and weight. Lung cancer is one of the most common cancers among New Yorkers. Smoking is the most common cause of lung cancer. Research studies show that exposure to second-hand smoke, radon gas, and asbestos also increase the risk for lung cancer.18 Table 3.10-5 contains cancer event data from the NYS Cancer Registry.

An examination of data for lung/bronchus cancer rates shows that the SIR for the COC is 0.93 for males (CI range 0.72 to 1.18) and 0.64 for females (CI range 0.46 to 0.87). The SIR for the comparison zip codes is 0.92 for males and 0.76 for females. The SIR for Queens County is 0.90 for males and 0.83 for females. The SIR for New York City is 0.93 for males and 0.88 for females. The lung/bronchus cancer SIRs for the COC were less than 1 with CIs for male lung cancer including 1 and female lung cancer excluding 1. Lung/bronchus cancer SIRs for the three comparison areas were also less than 1.

18 NYSDOH Website, 2010. “Learn More About Different Types of Cancers” accessed on February 24, 2011 at http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/cancer/registry/abouts/index.htm.

Table 3.10-4 Emergency Department Visits for Asthma in the Community of Concern and Three Comparison Areas from 2006 to 2008 (NYSDOH SPARCS) Part 1: ZIP Code 11105 - COC Emergency Age Group (years) Department Visits 2007 Population Rate* 2006 - 2008 0 - 4 84 2,027 138.1 0-17 231 7,439 103.5 18 - 64 318 27,854 38.1 65+ 51 6,072 28.0 TOTAL (all ages) 600 41,365 48.4 Part 2: ZIP Codes with Population Density similar to COC (Zip Codes: 11345, 11375, 11385, 11417, 11428, 11432) Emergency 95% CI Department 2007 Rate Age Group (years) Rate* Visits 2006 - Population ratio† lower upper 2008 0 - 4 1,395 20,441 227.5 0.61 0.48 0.75 0-17 2,955 73,051 134.8 0.77 0.67 0.87 18 - 64 3,085 215,306 47.8 0.80 0.71 0.89 65+ 470 51,355 30.5 0.92 0.68 1.21 TOTAL (all ages) 6,510 339,712 63.9 0.79 0.73 0.86 Part 3: Queens County Emergency 95% CI Department 2007 Rate Age Group (years) Rate* Visits 2006 - Population ratio† lower upper 2008 0 - 4 10,754 140,364 255.4 0.54 0.43 0.67 0-17 23,914 485,989 164.0 0.63 0.55 0.72 18 - 64 23,847 1,484,961 53.5 0.71 0.63 0.79 65+ 3,104 299,388 34.6 0.81 0.60 1.07 TOTAL (all ages) 50,865 2,270,338 74.7 0.68 0.63 0.74 Part 4: New York City Emergency 95% CI Department 2007 Rate Age Group (years) Rate* Visits 2006 - Population ratio† lower upper 2008 0 - 4 57,631 565,649 339.6 0.41 0.32 0.50 0-17 133,428 1,897,915 234.3 0.44 0.39 0.50 18 - 64 174,015 5,363,567 108.1 0.35 0.31 0.39 65+ 17,876 1,013,045 58.8 0.48 0.35 0.63 TOTAL (all ages) 325,319 8,274,527 131.1 0.39 0.36 0.42 * Average annual rate of asthma hospitalizations per 10,000 population. † Rate in ZIP Code X is numerator; rate in comparison area is denominator. Rate ratio for all ages is an age-adjusted standardized rate ratio, using 3 age groups (0-17, 18-64, 65+ years).

Table 3.10-5 Incidence Rates for Selected Cancer Sites for the Community of Concern and Three Comparison Areas for the 5-year period from 2002 – 2006 (NYS Cancer Registry)

Zip Code: 11105 (COC) Number of cases Number of cases 95% CI Cancer site SIR observed expected lower Upper Breast (female) 120 142.1 0.84 0.70 1.01 Colorectal (male) 59 58.0 1.02 0.77 1.31 Colorectal (female) 27 56.2 0.48 0.32 0.70 Prostate 103 160.5 0.64 0.52 0.78 Lung/Bronchus(male) 68 73.2 0.93 0.72 1.18 Lung/Bronchus(female) 41 64.0 0.64 0.46 0.87 Zip Codes in Queens County with Population Density similar to 11105 Number of cases Number of cases 95% CI Cancer site SIR observed expected lower Upper Breast (female) 1,079 1,161.7 0.93 0.87 0.99 Colorectal (male) 435 434.6 1.00 0.91 1.10 Colorectal (female) 506 495.8 1.02 0.93 1.11 Prostate 930 1,117.4 0.83 0.78 0.89 Lung/Bronchus(male) 488 531.3 0.92 0.84 1.00 Lung/Bronchus(female) 393 515.9 0.76 0.69 0.84 Queens County Number of cases Number of cases 95% CI Cancer site SIR observed expected lower Upper Breast (female) 7,096 7,605.0 0.93 0.91 0.96 Colorectal (male) 2,866 2,935.5 0.98 0.94 1.01 Colorectal (female) 3,174 3,202.6 0.99 0.96 1.03 Prostate 7,294 8,216.5 0.89 0.87 0.91 Lung/Bronchus(male) 3,253 3,611.0 0.90 0.87 0.93 Lung/Bronchus(female) 2,728 3,276.7 0.83 0.80 0.86 New York City Number of cases Number of cases 95% CI Cancer site SIR observed expected lower Upper Breast (female) 25,678 26,411.1 0.97 0.96 0.98 Colorectal (male) 9,931 9,820.6 1.01 0.99 1.03 Colorectal (female) 10,844 10,938.3 0.99 0.97 1.01 Prostate 26,224 28,786.9 0.91 0.90 0.92 Lung/Bronchus(male) 11,280 12,154.0 0.93 0.91 0.95 Lung/Bronchus(female) 9,850 11,130.6 0.88 0.87 0.90 *Following method of Byar

Discussion of Health Outcome Data Displays and Analyses

This section presents highlights of a discussion about the HOD analyses of the COC to the three comparison areas.

The rates for emergency department (ED) visits for asthma recorded for the 5-year period of 2006 to 2008 for the COC are lower than the rates for the comparison zip codes, Queens County, and New York City. With the exception of the rate ratio between the COC and the comparison zip codes and Queens County 65+ age groups, all the CIs excluded 1 indicating that the difference between the rates may not be due to random

fluctuation. The conclusion that may be drawn from Table 3.10-3 is that the ED visits of people 65+ years for asthma in the COC for 2006-2008 did not differ significantly from the comparison zip codes or Queens County and that lesser ED visits for asthma rates for all other age groups in the COC compared to the other areas did differ significantly and cannot be contributed to random variation.

The COC data shows a male colorectal cancer SIR of 1.02 with a 95% CI of 0.77 to 1.01. The CI suggests that the colorectal cancer rate in the COC is not statistically different from that of New York State. The NYS Cancer Registry notes that the 11105 zip code (Astoria Post Office) is within 15% of the expected cancer incidence rate. The expected incidence rate of male colorectal cancer throughout New York State is 58.0 cases per one hundred thousand.

The other cancer types for the COC show SIRs below 1.0. Female breast cancers SIRs in the COC, as well as in all of the comparison areas, were similar to that of New York State. The female breast cancer SIRs for the comparison zip codes, Queens County and New York City were 0.93, 0.93, and 0.97, respectively, with confidence intervals excluding but very close to one 0.87 to 0.99, 0.91 to 0.96 and 0.96 to 0.98, respectively. Similar conclusions can be made for the other cancer sites and rates reported in Table 3.10-5.

Emergency department visits for asthma and rates of female breast, colorectal, lung/bronchus and prostate cancers within the COC are comparable to or lower than the comparison zip codes, Queens County, and all of New York City. This conclusion is supported by the health outcome data review and analysis conducted in accordance with NYSDOH guidance as illustrated in Tables 3.10-4 and 3.10-5.

Community Health Profile of Northwest Queens

In 2006, the City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene completed a second edition of Community Health Profiles, which references Take Care New York when examining the causes of illness and death in all 42 neighborhoods of the City. Take Care New York is a series of ten action steps that provides information to the residents of the City for preventing deaths, illnesses, and disabilities. Results from this study are summarized below for the Northwest Queens community. Northwest Queens is a neighborhood defined for the purposes of the community health profile development and includes zip codes 11101, 11102, 11103, 11104, 11105 and 11109.

Members of the public are relatively accurate when rating their own health. In general, when asked to rate their general health as excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor, those who say “fair” or “poor” are more likely to have health problems than those who report better health. According to the Community Health Profile, Northwest Queens residents are just as likely to consider themselves in fair or poor health (22%) as those in Queens (20%) and in the City overall (21%). Neighborhood asthma hospitalization rates depend in part on the percentage of residents who have asthma. However, good medical management of asthma can prevent

many asthma-related hospitalizations, and patients can work with health care providers to better control their asthma. Thus, the asthma hospitalization rate can also indicate poor access to health care. Medical care may help people prevent illnesses, identify health conditions, and treat health problems.

Northwest Queens residents are more likely to be without a doctor (28%) when compared to Queens (24%) and the City (24%). More residents in Queens and the City have health insurance when compared to Northwest Queens. In fact, Northwest Queens has the second highest proportion of uninsured adults among all City neighborhoods. In Northwest Queens, the amount of residents who live below the poverty level is higher than in Queens overall. Therefore, northwest Queens residents are less likely than the average Queens resident to have the advantage of preventative medical care and rely more on emergency medical services (City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2006).

The Community Health Profile states that the percentage of residents who smoke in Northwest Queens (21%) is higher than in Queens (16%) and the City (18%). More people in Queens (68%) and the City (66%) try to quit smoking when compared to Northwest (51%).

Effects of LCEP on PEJA Burden

Section 3.10.2.1 above discusses the industrial history of the ConEd Complex and its vicinity. Given its location along major urban highways and thoroughfares, as well as marine transportation routes, the environmental conditions of the greater Astoria area are subject to a diversity of contributors to air pollution. There are known Superfund, RCRA and TRI sites within 2-miles of the project site as well (Table 3.10-1).

The LCEP is not expected to contribute any additional environmental burden on the local PEJA. As demonstrated by the analysis of potential air contaminants to be emitted by the LCEP Equipment contained in Section 3.4, the Project will not contribute to the community’s air pollution burden. In fact, the LCEP will decrease the annual actual emissions now coming from the AGS Facility, and therefore will reduce the contribution of the AGS Facility on air quality impacts that may contribute to adverse environmental and health impacts. The Project will provide new, high efficiency, clean electric generation, while reducing the emissions for virtually all criteria pollutants, and for the few that are not reduced, maintaining no increase. In addition, a conservative air dispersion modeling analysis demonstrates that the air quality impacts resulting from the emissions of pollutants from the LCEP Equipment will be below their respective SILs (see Section 3.4). Impacts that are below SILs by definition will not cause or contribute to exceedances of ambient air quality standards. Furthermore, the LCEP Equipment will supply greatly needed energy during peak periods, thereby increasing reliability and uninterrupted electrical generation service for area businesses, residences and the City.

The consequences of the LCEP include modification of the Title V Air Permit for the existing AGS Units to retire existing AGS Unit 2 and implement enforceable emissions limits on

existing AGS Unit No. 4 and 5 (Section 3.4). There will be no significant noise levels (Section 3.7), de minimis increases in traffic levels associated with project operations (Section 3.8), and a visually sensitive design in order to integrate the LCEP Equipment with the surrounding landscape (Section 3.6). The Site has been designed, structurally and visually, to ensure that construction and operation activities will accommodate and complement existing community plans and efforts.

Other Project benefits are the numerous environmentally sensitive design attributes that may be incorporated into the LCEP. As further described in Section 3.10, green design considerations for the proposed Project include both green building techniques and renewable/conservation energy strategies. The green designs attributes which are being evaluated, include, but are not limited to, the following items:

Green Building Techniques

1) Green planted spaces around the facility.

2) Incorporating vegetation to mitigate potential visual and/or noise effects.

3) Laying out the facility to minimize bulk.

4) Selecting colors that blend into the area.

Renewable/Conservation Energy Strategies

1) Capturing rain water for irrigation on site.

2) Water conserving plumbing fixtures.

3) High efficiency lighting.

4) Review/modification of the conservation efforts in the existing AGS (i.e., replacing lights to energy efficient fixtures/bulbs).

5) Consideration of using electric/hybrid vehicles on site.

While the Project cannot provide public waterfront access because it is necessary to maintain Site security and due to potential safety concerns, the LCEP Equipment is being designed to be consistent with the heavy manufacturing (industrial) use (M3-1 District) zoning of the zoning district in which the Site is located.

AGC has fully complied with the requirements of CP-29 and associated NYSDOH guidance. The interaction with the community has resulted in a better energy project for the community and the City, and AGC will continue to keep the Astoria community aware and involved with the LCEP.

3.10.3 References

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2006. Community Health Profile – Northwest Queens, Brooklyn, Second Edition.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York State Department of Health, 2006. Report of the Health Outcome Data Work Group (2006 HOD Report), January 2006. Available online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/905.html.

New York State Department of Health, 2011. New York State Cancer Registry. Accessed in February 2011 at http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/cancer/registry/.

New York State Department of Health, 2011. Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS), Asthma Emergency Department Visits in New York State by County and ZIP Code (2006-2008). Accessed in February 2001 at http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/ny_asthma/.

New York State Department of Health, 2011. Guidance for Health Outcome Data Review and Analysis Relating to NYSDEC Environmental Justice and Permitting, Draft 7/21/08. Version available online at http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/investigations/environmental_justice/.

United States Census Bureau, 2011. New American FactFinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/main.html

3.11 Public Safety

This section presents information on the existing conditions, potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures related to public safety due to the construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment.

3.11.1 Existing Conditions

Public safety concerns associated with the Project are generally characterized as those which relate to standard construction and operational activities at an industrial site, the unique features of an electric generation facility, and the proximity of the Site to the water. Concerns include the prevention of potential for injuries to workers and the general public associated with construction projects in general, from the movement of construction vehicles, equipment and materials, falling overhead objects, falls into open excavations, electrocution from high voltage equipment, fuel related events, and injury due to accidents in the adjacent water body. These types of incidents are generally well understood by AGC contract vendors and staff due to mandatory safety training required for anyone that is given permission to access the AGS Facility. All other visitors are escorted by trained AGS personnel. AGC has earned recognition as an OSHA Voluntary Protection Program “Star” site for its safety record and programs.

In addition, as an electrical generating facility both high pressure natural gas and residual oil are used at the AGS Facility. Natural gas is not stored at the AGS Facility and is currently brought in via an underground pipe. The existing natural gas delivery system will be extended to connect to the LCEP Equipment. A new aboveground fuel oil tank will also be constructed at the FOTF for the storage of ULSD. Currently there is approximately 8 million gallons of No. 6 oil storage at the

FOTF in four tanks for the existing boilers at the AGS. Those tanks will remain in service. Fuel is currently delivered by barge to the tanks from the adjacent A-10 dock and will be delivered from the same dock to the new tank.

Public access to the AGS Facility is restricted with fencing and gates. The AGS Facility currently employs a 24-hour security guard who is located at the gated entrance to the AGS Facility, as well as a security camera system focused on the perimeter of the facility. The local police, fire officials and USCG officials are familiar with the AGS Facility.

3.11.1.1 Police Protection

Local City of New York Police Department (NYPD) officers are aware that the AGS Facility has a secured, guarded entrance, and are familiar with the Site and its potential safety issues through routine visits to the AGS Facility. Additional information on the interaction between the AGS Facility and local law enforcement resources is provided in Section 3.12.

3.11.1.2 Fire Protection

The AGS Facility is an existing facility which has established fire prevention and response procedures and conducts response drills on a scheduled basis. As such, local FDNY and emergency service providers are familiar with the Site and its potential safety issues, and make routine unannounced inspections to assure continued full compliance. Additional information on the interaction between the AGS and community fire fighting resources is provided in Section 3.12.

3.11.1.3 United States Coast Guard

The USCG is a military and maritime service within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The purpose of the USCG is to protect the public, the environment, and economic and security interests. The USCG is aware of the AGS Facility and routinely conducts inspections.

3.11.1.4 Stray Voltage

Stray voltage is controlled at the existing AGS Facility by proper grounding techniques within and around facility components. There have been no safety incidents related to stray voltage at the AGS Facility. Stray voltage is a phenomenon that has been studied since at least the 1960s. Stray voltage can be defined as a “low level of neutral-to-earth electrical current that occurs between two points on a grounded electrical system” (Wisconsin Rural Energy Management Council, 2000). These voltages are termed “stray voltage” when they are large enough to form a circuit when a person or an animal touches simultaneously two objects which are part of an electrical system.

The occurrence of stray voltage may result from a damaged or poorly connected wiring system, corrosion on either end of the wires, or weak/damaged insulation materials on the “hot” wire. Stray voltage from such facilities usually only occurs if the system is poorly grounded and located in proximity to ungrounded or poorly grounded metal objects (fences,

buildings, etc.). Issues like stray voltage are well understood at the AGS Facility, and mandatory safety training is required for anyone that is given permission to access to the AGS Facility. Proper grounding techniques within and around the LCEP Equipment will mitigate stray voltage to obsolescence.

3.11.1.5 Site Traffic

The existing AGS Facility has posted speed limits and safe driving procedures for operating vehicles on the site.

3.11.1.6 Security

As stated in Section 3.11.1, the AGS Facility currently employs a 24-hour security guard who is located at the gated entrance to the AGS Facility, as well as a security camera system focused on the perimeter of the facility. Local police officers are aware that the AGS Facility has a secured, guarded entrance and are familiar with the Site and its potential safety issues through routine visits to the Site.

The AGS Facility staff routinely meets with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), New York State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) and the USCG to review protocols and procedures to avoid and/or respond to events such as natural disasters and terrorism. The existing procedures will be updated as needed to incorporate the LCEP Equipment.

Access to the AGS Facility must be approved by plant personnel and all visitors must provide identification and receive a visitor badge before being signed in by AGS Facility security and allowed to enter. For access to the FOTF, AGC, as required by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has instituted a biometric transportation worker identification credential system (a federally endorsed security measure that will ensure individuals who pose a threat do not gain unescorted access to secure areas of the nation’s maritime transportation system [Transportation Security Administration, 2010]).

3.11.2 Potential Impacts

The construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse impacts to the public safety and security in the vicinity of the Site.

3.11.2.1 Construction

Public safety concerns associated with LCEP Equipment construction are minimal due to the restricted access to the AGS Facility, which prevents the public from entering. Risk to construction workers associated with construction-related injury will be minimized through regular safety training and the use of appropriate safety equipment. These procedures and training address the movement of large construction vehicles, equipment and materials, falling overhead objects, falls into open excavations, and proximity to high voltage electrical equipment, and are most relevant to construction personnel who will be working in close

proximity to construction equipment and materials, and will be exposed to construction- related hazards on a daily basis.

The general public could also be exposed to construction-related hazards due to the passage of large construction equipment on area roads. Because construction activities will occur on private land, and will be well removed from adjacent roads and residences, exposure of the general public to construction-related risks/hazard will be very limited.

The construction workforce is expected to be a maximum of approximately 350 employees at the peak time and work will normally occur on weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., with possible work on Saturdays being required. All construction employees will undergo site specific health and safety training before gaining access to the Site. Upon completion of training, construction personnel will be issued identification cards which will allow them to access the Site. Individual subcontractors will be responsible for providing suitable workers that are fit for duty.

Traffic Safety

Three primary construction transportation routes (Section 3.8) have been developed and these routes will be adopted to the maximum extent practicable to assure that construction vehicles avoid areas where public safety could be a concern (schools, clusters of homes, etc.). To minimize safety risks to the general public, all OS/OW vehicles will be accompanied by an escort vehicle and/or flagman to assure safe passage of vehicles on public roads.

Fire

The LCEP Equipment and electrical equipment will be inspected by qualified engineers and the appropriate governing agency (FDNY, City Department of Small Business Services, etc.) for conformance with permit conditions prior to being brought on line. This, along with implementation of built-in safety systems, minimizes the chance of fire occurring in the turbine or electrical interconnect. However, fire at these facilities could result from a lighting strike, short circuit, or mechanical failure/malfunction. Under these conditions, the turbine would be immediately shut down and maintenance personnel would respond as appropriate.

The SiemensCT has an automatic CO2 fire extinguishing system and the main transformer has an automated fire fighting deluge system installed.

Security

The Site is located such that access can be granted to the Site for construction and workers will be restricted from going into the existing operating facility. A construction access procedure will be established with the contractors to facilitate the work and maintain security of the existing site during construction.

Health and Safety

The general public will not be allowed on the construction site. Contractors will comply with all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, in addition to state

worker safety regulations, regarding electricity, structural climbing, and other hazards, during construction of the LCEP Equipment. To minimize safety risks to construction personnel, all workers will be required to adhere to a safety compliance program protocol which will be prepared by the contractor in accordance with AGC standards prior to construction. The safety compliance program will address appropriate health and safety related issues including:

Personal protective equipment such as hardhats, safety glasses, orange vest, and steel- toed boots

Job safety meetings and attendance requirements

Fall prevention

Construction equipment operation

Maintenance and protection of traffic

Hand and power tool use

Open hole and excavation area safety

Parking

General first aid

Petroleum and hazardous material storage, use, containment, and spill prevention

Posting of health and safety requirements

Visitors to the job site

Local emergency resources and contact information

Incident reporting requirements

Temporary construction fencing or other visible barriers will be placed around excavations that remain open during off hours in compliance with local or OSHA requirements. In addition, material safety data sheets (MSDS) for potentially hazardous construction materials will be maintained on-site and will be provided to local fire and emergency service personnel. AGC will also coordinate with these entities to assure that they are aware of where various construction activities are occurring, to avoid potential conflicts between construction activity and the provision of emergency services (e.g., road blockages, etc.).

AGC will develop a site specific Construction Health and Safety Plan. Should an injury occur on-site, the procedures as outlined in the safety plan will be followed.

Inspections

Safety, environmental protection, security and QA/QC inspections of the major facilities and equipment will be conducted to assure that the LCEP Equipment is constructed in a manner that minimizes risks to the public and project personnel. These inspections will typically address, but not be limited to, the following topics:

Environmental Health, Safety and Security

Turbine/Electric Generator Set

Air cooled condenser

Concrete/Structural

Electrical System

Turbine Transformers and Main Substation Switchgear

Substation Breakers

Substation Relaying and Instrumentation

Substation Structural Steel Work

3.11.2.2 Operation

The AGS Facility is not accessible to the public, is secured by a 24-hour security service, and has public safety and security procedures in place with various community services based on the AGS Facility’s location and equipment. The LCEP will require only approximately 25 to 30 new permanent operational positions, and therefore the LCEP will not require significant adjustments to current security processes and procedures. As a consequence, the operation of the LCEP Equipment is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact to area safety and security.

Traffic Safety

Because the Site is located within the ConEd Complex, AGS Facility employees and construction personnel will adhere to existing, posted speed limits and safe driving procedures while operating construction or operating vehicles on the Site.

Fire

Some mechanical construction and operational equipment at the Site will contain flammable components. The presence of electrical generating equipment and electrical cables, along with various oils (lubricating, cooling, and hydraulic) within equipment creates the potential for fire or a medical emergency on the Site. In addition, the presence of high-voltage electrical equipment at the Site could present potential safety risks to local responders.

Other potential for a fire or medical emergency arise due to the storage and use of diesel fuels, oils and other flammable materials at the Site. These substances will be stored in the designated areas in approved storage containers and structures within the existing site in accordance with the established protocols. Due to the relative ease of accessing this area, emergency response efforts should not pose difficulties to local fire and emergency personnel.

The major LCEP Equipment components, including the SiemensCT and transformer, will be equipped with automated fire suppression systems. These systems should quickly extinguish any potential fires that occur within that equipment. In addition, due to the relative ease of accessing the flammable materials stored in the Operations and Maintenance Building, emergency response efforts should not pose difficulties to local fire and emergency personnel if an emergency situation occurs.

AGC will meet with the local engine and ladder companies, as well as FDNY officials, during the design and construction permitting process to confirm that all standards are being met to the satisfaction of the local Fire Chief. Construction and operational personnel will be trained and have the appropriate equipment to deal with emergency situations that may occur at the Site. It is not anticipated that the FDNY will require any additional staff or equipment to be able to provide service to the LCEP Equipment. Consequently, such an incident would generally not expose local emergency service providers or the general public to any public health or safety risk (see Section 3.12 for additional detail).

Security

As stated in Section 3.11.1, the LCEP Equipment is to be constructed and operated within the ConEd Complex, which currently employs 24-hour security guards. Guards are stationed at the entrance to the ConEd Complex, and the perimeter of the property is under constant security camera surveillance. In addition, local police officers, fire fighters, and emergency response personnel are familiar with the Site and its potential safety issues through routine visits to the Site.

The existing security procedures for the AGS Facility will be updated as needed to incorporate the LCEP Equipment. AGC recently completed a Security Vulnerability Assessment conducted by a certified specialist, and recommendations resulting from that assessment are being evaluated for implementation. Those recommendations are maintained in a secure and confidential manner, in accordance with federal security guidelines.

Aqueous Ammonia Tank

The LCEP Equipment will utilize an SCR system for the reduction of NOX from the SiemensCT

exhaust gas stream. The SCR will use a 19% aqueous NH3 solution (the most commonly used

form for this application). The aqueous NH3 solution will be stored in an approximately

40,000 gallon tank at the Site. For further information on the use of NH3, see Section 2.6.2.2

Under certain conditions, NH3 can cause health effects and can be lethal. As such, AGC will

handle and store NH3 in compliance with applicable provisions of New York State Chemical Bulk Storage Regulations 6 NYCRR Part 596-599, and prepare a DEP Right to Know RMP. The

LCEP NH3 storage area will be under video surveillance, and access will be limited to authorized operational personnel.

3.11.2.3 Proposed Mitigation

The following mitigation measures will be implemented in order to increase the safety and security of the LCEP Equipment and surrounding community:

1. In order to minimize unwarranted access to sensitive areas, the Site will come under the AGS Facility security system already in place, which will limit Site access to station personnel or authorized visitors.

2. The occurrence of stray voltage will be mitigated by incorporating proper grounding techniques within and around Site components.

3. Facility employees and construction personnel will adhere to AGC’s existing posted speed limits and safe driving procedures while operating construction or operating vehicles on the Site.

4. AGC implemented a biometric transportation worker identification credential system, a federally endorsed security measure that will ensure individuals who pose a threat do not gain unescorted access to secure areas of the nation’s maritime transportation system (Transportation Security Administration, 2010).

5. AGC will continue to work with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, LEPC, and SEMO to develop additional means to further enhance the security of the Site.

3.11.3 References

Transportation Security Administration, 2010. Transportation Worker Identification Credential. Accessed September 10, 2010. http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/twic/index.shtm

Wisconsin Rural Energy Management Council, 2000. Wisconsin Legislative Council Information Memorandum. Accessed September 10, 2010. http://libcd.law.wisc.edu/~wilc/im/im_2000_13.pdf

3.12 Community Facilities and Services

3.12.1 Existing Conditions

This section presents information on the existing conditions, potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures to community facilities and services in the vicinity of the Site that may result from construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment. For the purpose of this section, “the vicinity” is defined as a two-mile radius centered on the Site. Area services discussed in Sections 3.12.1.1 to 3.12.1.12 include police protection, fire protection, USCG, public health and

emergency response. This section also provides information on community facilities, such as schools, hospitals, and parks located within a 2-mile radius of the Site, and potential incremental burden on these services due to additional employees that may be employed as a result of the LCEP.

3.12.1.1 Police Protection

The closest NYPD station to the Site is the 114th Precinct station located at 34-16 Astoria Boulevard, approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the Site. According to the 114th Precinct website, 2,044 official responses were performed in 2009 (NYPD, 2010). In addition to this nearby station, the NYPD also has facilities in Jackson Heights located at 92-15 Northern Boulevard.

As described in Section 3.11, the ConEd Complex employs a 24-hour security system that includes posted guards and a camera system. In addition, the AGS Facility has its own security system that will be replicated at the LCEP Equipment, which includes 24-hour security personnel and camera systems. Local police officers are aware that the ConEd Complex and AGS are secured with guarded entrances and are familiar with the sites and operations as a result of routine visits.

3.12.1.2 Fire Protection

The FDNY station closest to the Site is Engine 312, Battalion 49, located at 22-63 35th Street. This station is approximately 1.0 miles south southwest of the Site. Table 3.12-1 lists the fire stations within a 2-mile radius of the Site.

Table 3.12-1: Fire Stations in the Vicinity of the Site Fire Station Address Distance and Direction from the Site Engine 312, Battalion 49 22-63 35th Street 1.0 mile South-Southwest Engine 263, Ladder 117 42-06 Astoria Boulevard 1.25 mile South-Southwest Engine 83, Ladder 29 618 E.138th Street 1.3 mile Northwest Engine 73, Ladder 42 655 Prospect Avenue 1.8 mile North Engine 60, Ladder 17 341 E.143rd Street 1.95 mile Northwest Engine 262 30-89 21st Street 1.95 mile Southwest Engine 35, Ladder 14 2282 3rd Avenue 2.0 mile West-Northwest Engine 91 242 E.111th Street 2.0 mile West-Northwest

As further described in Section 3.11, it is important to note that the AGS Facility has established fire prevention and response procedures, and conducts routine response drills on a periodic basis in conjunction with local agencies. As such, local fire departments and emergency service providers are familiar with the AGS Facility and site-specific conditions.

3.12.1.3 Local Emergency Planning Committee

LEPCs were established by the Federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know, 1986). The purpose of this Act is to encourage and support emergency planning efforts at the state and local levels, and to provide the public and local governments with information concerning potential chemical hazards present in their communities. The City Office of Emergency Management, located at 165 Cadman Plaza, Brooklyn, New York, serves as the LEPC for the five boroughs of the City. The City Office of Emergency Management plans and prepares for emergencies, educates the public about preparedness, coordinates emergency response and recovery, and collects and disseminates emergency information (City Office of Emergency Management, 2010).

3.12.1.4 New York State Emergency Management Office

SEMO works with all levels of government, the private sector, and volunteer organizations for identifying local hazards, developing plans, and strategizing to reduce risks, and provide the necessary training and exercises to improve the capabilities of communities throughout New York. SEMO contains five different regions within the State. The Site is located within SEMO Region I.

3.12.1.5 United States Coast Guard

3.12.1.6 Sanitation Facilities

Three existing sanitation facilities are located within the vicinity of the Site. These include the City Department of Sanitation garages located at 680 East 132nd Street, 720 East 132nd Street, and 650 Casanova Street.

Sanitary wastewater is currently discharged from the AGS Facility to the Bowery Bay WPCP 43-10 Berrian Boulevard in Queens, New York. The design capacity of the WPCP is approximately 150 million gallons per day, which serves approximately 848,000 people. The Bowery Bay WPCP treats an average of approximately 112 million gallons per day (DEP, 2003). The treated wastewater is discharged to the Upper East River. It is estimated that the existing AGS Facility discharges an average of 26,000 gallons of wastewater per day to the treatment facility.

3.12.1.7 Educational Facilities

As detailed in Table 3.12-2, a total of 93 public and private schools are located within a 2- mile radius of the Site. The schools consist of elementary, middle, junior high, high schools, and colleges. Many area educational facilities offer after-school and youth programming in the community.

Table 3.12-2: Education Facilities in the Vicinity of the Site Distance/Direction School Address Grades from the Site Academy of Applied Mathematics and 1.65 miles North- 345 Brook Avenue 6, 7, 8, SE Technology Northwest 2.0 miles West- Amber Charter School 220 East 106th Street K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Northwest Banana Kelly High School 965 Longwood Avenue 2.0 miles North 9, 10, 11, 12 1.95 miles North- Boricua College 424 East 147th Street College Northwest 1.85 miles North- Bronx Charter School for Children 388 Willis Avenue K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Northwest PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, Corpus Christi School 3115 60th Street 2.0 miles South 5, 6, 7, 8 Early Childhood Center 659 Coster Street 1.9 miles Northeast PK 1.5 miles North- Early Childhood Center East 139th Street PK Northwest East Harlem School 340 East 104th Street 1.95 miles West 5, 6, 7, 8 1.75 miles West- East Harlem Village Academy 2351 1st Avenue, 4th Floor 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Northwest 1.7 miles North- Flags High School 470 Jackson Avenue 9, 10, 11, 12 Northeast Foreign Language Academy of Global 1.7 miles North- 470 Jackson Avenue 9, 10, 11, 12, SE Studies Northeast 240 East 123rd Street, 1st Harlem Day Charter School 1.9 miles Northwest K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Floor 1.75 miles West- Harlem Village Academy Leadership 2351 1st Avenue, 4th Floor 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Northwest K, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, Hyde Leadership Charter School 730 Bryant Avenue 2.0 miles Northeast 9 0.8 miles South- IHS141 The Steinway School 37-11 21st Avenue 6, 7, 8 Southeast 0.85 miles South- 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Immaculate Conception School 2163 29th Street Southwest 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 1.55 miles West- Isaac Newton Middle School 260 Pleasant Avenue 6, 7, 8 Northwest 1.8 miles North- JHS 162 L. Rodriquez De Tri School 600 St. Ann's Avenue 6, 7, 8 Northwest 1.75 miles West- JHS 45 J.C. Roberts JHS 2351 First Avenue 6, 7, 8 Northwest JM Rapport School for Career 1.7 miles North- 470 Jackson Avenue 9, 10, 11, 12, SE Development Northeast King's Academy 2345 3rd Avenue 2.0 miles Northwest PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Leadership Village Academy Charter 1.7 miles West- 413 East 120th Street 5 School Northwest PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 30th Avenue and 75th 1.8 miles South- Lexington School of the Deaf 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Street Southeast 11, 12 Manhattan Center for Science & 1.6 miles West- 260 Pleasant Avenue 9, 10, 11, 12 Mathematics Northwest Monsignor McClancy Memorial High 2.0 miles South- 71-06 31st Avenue 9, 10, 11, 12 School Southeast Mott Haven Academy Charter School 165 Brown Place, 3rd Floor 1.6 miles Northwest K, 1, 2 1.6 miles West- PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, Mount Carmel-Holy Rosary School 371 Pleasant Avenue Northwest 5, 6, 7, 8

Distance/Direction School Address Grades from the Site MS 223 The Laboratory School of 2.0 miles North- 360 East 145th Street 6, 7, 8, SE Finance Northwest MS 302 Luisa Dessus Cruz 681 Kelly Street 1.9 miles North 6, 7, 8, SE Mt Sinai School of Medicine 2510 30th Avenue 1.75 miles Southwest College 1.6 miles West- PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, Mt. Carmel Holy Rosary School 371 Pleasant Avenue Northwest 5, 6, 7, 8 2.0 miles North- New School For Arts and Science 965 Longwood Avenue 9, 10, 11, 12 Northeast City Charter High School-Architecture, 296-300 East 140th Street 2.0 miles Northwest 9, 10 Engineering, Construction Industries 1.45 miles South- K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Omar Ibn al Khattab School 2555 Steinway Street Southwest 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 1.75 miles South- PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, Our Lady of Fatima School 2538 80th Street Southeast 5, 6, 7, 8 PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, Our Lady of Mount Carmel School 2315 Newtown Avenue 1.8 miles Southwest 5, 6, 7, 8 1.95 miles West- PS 102 Jacques Cartier 315 East 113th Street PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Northwest 1.55 miles West- PS 112 Jose Celso Barbosa 535 East 119th Street PK, K, 1, 2 Northwest PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, PS 122 Mamie Fay School 21-21 Ditmars Boulevard 0.85 miles Southwest 5, 6 PS 146 Ann M Short 421 East 106th Street 1.8 miles West PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2.0 miles South- PS 151 Mary D Carter 50-05 31st Avenue PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Southwest 1.8 miles West- PS 151 William Paca 319 East 117th Street PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Northwest PS 154 Jonathan D Hyatt 333 East 135th Street 1.8 miles Northwest PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1.8 miles West- PS 155 William Paca 319 East 117th Street PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Northwest PS 161 Ponce De Leon 628 Tinton Avenue 1.85 miles North PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1.9 miles North- PS 162 John Golden St. Anns Avenue PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Northwest PS 17 Henry David Thoreau 28-37 29th Street 1.65 miles Southwest PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PS 171 Peter G Van Alst 14-14 29th Avenue 1.75 miles Southwest PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PS 179 468 East 140th Street 1.5 miles Northwest PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1.2 miles South- PS 2 Alfred Zimberg 75-10 21st Avenue K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Southeast 1.6 miles West- PS 206 Jose Celso Barbosa 508 East 120th Street 3, 4, 5 Northwest PS 234 30-15 29th Street 1.75 miles Southwest PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, PS 25 Bilingual School 811 East 149th Street 1.75 miles North 5, 9 1.8 miles North- PS 277 519 St. Anns Avenue PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Northwest PS 30 Wilton 510 East 141st Street 1.65 miles Northwest PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1.65 miles North- PS 30 Wilton School 510 East 141st Street PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Northwest PS 369 Young Leaders Elementary 1.65 miles North- 468 East 140th Street PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 School Northwest PS 43 Jonas Bronck 165 Brown Place 1.6 miles Northwest PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PS 48 Joseph R Drake 1290 Spofford Avenue 1.95 miles Northeast PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PS 49 Willis Avenue 383 East 139th Street 1.75 miles Northwest PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Distance/Direction School Address Grades from the Site 1.8 miles North- PS 5 Port Morris 564 Jackson Avenue PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Northeast 1.75 miles North- PS 62 Inocensio Casanova 660 Fox Street PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Northeast 1.5 miles North- PS 65 Mother Hale Academy 677 East 141st Street PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Northwest 1.8 miles South- PS 70 Queens 30-45 42nd Street PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Southwest PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, PS 84 Steinway School 22-45 41st Street 1.1 miles South 5, 6 1.15 miles South- PS 85 Judge Charles Vallone 23-70 31st Street PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Southeast 1.95 miles West- PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, PS 96 Joseph Lanzetta 216 East 120th Street Northwest 5, 6, 7, 8 PS IS 224 345 Brook Avenue 1.7 miles Northwest 6, 7, 8 0.7 miles South- 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Queens Luthern School 3120 21st Avenue Southwest 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 1.6 miles West- River East School 260 Pleasant Avenue K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Northwest 1.65 miles North- Samual Gompers High School 455 Southern Boulevard 9, 10, 11, 12 Northeast South Bronx Charter School for 383 East 139th Street 1.8 miles Northwest K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 International Cultures and Arts South Bronx Head Start Center 490 East 143rd Street 1.75 miles Northwest PK 1.9 miles North- 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, South Bronx Prepatory School 360 East 145th Street Northwest 11, 12 1.7 miles South- St Margaret Mary Head Start 916 27th Avenue PK Southwest 1.9 miles West- PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, St. Ann School 314 East 110th Street Northwest 5, 6, 7, 8 K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, St. Anselm School 685 Tinton Avenue 1.9 miles North 7, 8 2.0 miles North- PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, St. Athanasius School 830 Southern Boulevard Northeast 5, 6, 7, 8 PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1.0 miles South- St. Demetrios Annex 22 30 33rd Street 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Southwest 11, 12 PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, St. Demetrios School 3003 30th Drive 1.8 miles Southwest 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, St. Francis Assisi School 2118 46th Street 1.0 miles South 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 St. Ignatius School 740 Manida Street 1.95 miles Northeast 5, 6, 7, 8 PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, St. Jerome School 222 Alexander Avenue 1.8 miles Northwest 5, 6, 7, 8 0.75 miles South- 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, St. John's Preparatory School 2121 Crescent Street Southwest 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 1.7 miles South- PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, St. Joseph School 2846 44th Street Southwest 5, 6, 7, 8 1.45 miles North- PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, St. Luke School 608 East 139th Street Northwest 5, 6, 7, 8 1.8 miles North- PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, St. Pius V School 413 East 144th Street Northwest 5, 6, 7, 8

Distance/Direction School Address Grades from the Site 1.75 miles West- Urban Peace Academy 2351 First Avenue 12 Northwest Vaughn College of Aeronautics and 86-01 23rd Avenue 1.7 miles SE College Technology 1.95 miles North- Wildcat Second Opportunity School 1201 Lafayette Avenue 6, 7, 8 Northeast Winifred Wheeler Nursery School 200 Alexander Avenue 1.9 miles Northwest PK Sources: DCP, 2010 and Yahoo Maps, 2010.

3.12.1.8 Libraries

As listed on Table 3.12-3, a total of four libraries are located within a 2-mile radius of the Site. In addition to providing access to books, videos, and computers, the area libraries offer extended education classes (e.g., English for Speakers of Other Languages), professional development resources, and host various cultural programs and children activities.

Table 3.12-3: Libraries in the Vicinity of the Site

Distance and Direction to the Institution Name Address Site Steinway Branch Queens Library 21-45 31st Street 0.8 miles South-Southwest

Queens Borough Public Library Astoria 14-01 Astoria 1.7 miles Southwest Branch Boulevard One Twenty-Fifth Street Library 224 East 125th Street 2.0 miles West-Northwest Mott Haven Library 321 East 140th Street 2.0 miles Northwest Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 2010.

3.12.1.9 Parks

As indicated in Table 3.12-4, there are a total of 34 parks and playgrounds offering passive and active outdoor recreational opportunities within a 2-mile radius of the Site. The parks range from less than 0.03 acres at O'Sullivan Plaza to over 273 acres at Randall’s Island Park. Other notable parks in the vicinity of the Site include Astoria Park (approximately 65 acres), St. Mary's Playground (approximately 35 acres), and T. Jefferson Park (approximately 15 acres). Parks in the 2-mile vicinity of the LCEP generally contain playgrounds for children, recreation fields and courts, trails, and paths. The closest park to the Site is Woodtree Playground, which is located approximately 0.60 miles to the south.

Table 3.12-4: New York City Parks in the Vicinity of the Site Distance/ Area Park Address Direction Park Description (acres) from LCEP Contains bathrooms, 1.8 mile 30 Road, 45th Street eateries, fitness equipment, Astoria Heights Playground South- 2.2 to 46th Street handball courts, playgrounds, Southwest pools, and spray showers Astoria Park South, Contains outdoor tennis 21st Street, Hoyt 0.85 miles courts, a track, a bandstand, Astoria Park 65.78 Avenue, Ditmars Southwest multiple trails, basketball Boulevard, East River courts, and playgrounds 29th Street, 30th 1.7 miles Contains bathrooms and Athens Square Street, 30th Avenue, 0.9 Southwest playgrounds Newtown Avenue Located on the East River waterfront. Contains boating, 1.3 miles Barretto Point Park Tiffany Street 5 canoeing, kayaking, fishing, Northeast volleyball net, basketball court, and a playground Contains baseball fields, 1.6 miles basketball courts, bocce W/S 77th Street, N/S Bulova Park South- 1.5 courts, fitness equipment, 25th Avenue Southeast handball courts, and playgrounds 20th Avenue, 21st 1.5 miles Contains a walking area and Carlos R. Lillo Park Avenue and 76th South- 0.1 a garden Street Southwest Hoyt Avenue, North Contains a hockey rink and 1.3 miles Chappetto Square From 21st Street to 1.226 three trees that surround the Southwest 23rd Street flagpole and memorial plaque Contains planting boxes, South Hoyt Avenue, 1.45 miles trees, benches, brick Columbus Triangle Astoria Boulevard and South- 0.1 walkways, an entrance to the 31st Street Southwest elevated subway line, and a flagpole with a yardarm Contains several modern jungle gyms and a flagpole 23rd Avenue to 1.0 mile with a yardarm; also contains Ditmars Park Ditmars Boulevard, South- 0.92 bathrooms, bocce courts, Steinway Street Southwest handball courts, playgrounds, spray showers Oak Point and 1.75 miles Drake Park Lakeview Avenues 2.49 Contains dog runs Northeast and Drake Park South Main Avenue and 1.95 miles Goodwill Park Astoria Boulevard and 0.41 Contains a baseball field Southwest 8th Street

Distance/ Area Park Address Direction Park Description (acres) from LCEP Contains a recreational facility and a playground. The playground contains street-hockey, volleyball, 30th Avenue, 85th basketball and soccer courts, Gorman Playground Street, 25th Avenue, 1.8 mile SE 2.75 slides, tunnels, swings, 84th Street sprinklers, and the Parcourse Fitness Center. Also contains bathrooms, eateries, fitness equipment, handball courts, and spray showers. Bruckner Boulevard, 1.35 miles Governor Morris Triangle Jackson Avenue, East North- 0.31 Green space 138th Street Northwest 1.75 miles Contains a baseball field, 2nd Street and 26th Hellgate Field West- 3.622 running track, and Avenue Southwest grandstands Contains basketball and handball courts, swings for tots and older children, play equipment with safety surfacing, drinking fountains, Hoyt Avenue, 29th 1.25 mile a flagpole with a yardarm, Hoyt Playground 2.2 Street to 31st Street Southwest sitting areas with benches, camel and elephant play sculptures, and game tables; also contains handball courts, playgrounds, and spray showers 1.9 miles East River Opposite E Utilized for educational and Mill Rock Island West- 8.64 96th Street arts events Southwest Astoria Boulevard, 1.95 miles One Room Schoolhouse Park 0.14 Sitting area and a garden 90th Street Southeast Astoria Boulevard, 1.9 mile O'Sullivan Plaza 88th Street, 25th 0.03 Contains trees and shrubs Southeast Avenue The park contains a steep Ditmars Boulevard, 1.75 miles and wooded incline. Contains Overlook Park 97th Street to 100th East- 2.33 a sitting area and driving Street Southeast turn-around crown the top of the hill. 85th Street, Grand 1.6 miles Plainview Park Central Parkway, 83rd ~2.0 Green space Southeast Street Contains handball, Willis Avenue, basketball, and volleyball Bruckner Boulevard, E 1.6 miles courts; also contains a Pulaski Park 1.43 132nd Street, Willis Northwest playground, exercise Avenue equipment, and drinking fountains

Distance/ Area Park Address Direction Park Description (acres) from LCEP Shore Boulevard 0.75 miles between Ditmars The park contains a Ralph Demarco Park West- 5.0 Boulevard and 20th waterfront and dog runs Southwest Avenue Contains Downing Stadium, which hosted professional football and soccer teams, as East River and Harlem 0.7 mile well Olympic Trials and music Randalls Island Park 273.38 River Northwest concerts; also contains waterfront pathways featuring bicycle and pedestrian trails 38th Street, 31st Avenue and 2.0 miles Contains handball courts, Sean's Place Broadway between South- 0.58 playgrounds, and spray 31st Avenue and Southwest showers Broadway St. Mary's Street, St. 1.5 mile Contains a running track, Ann's Avenue, East St. Mary's Playground North- 35.31 handball courts, baseball 149th Street, Jackson Northwest fields, and basketball courts Avenue Contains a baseball field and spectator stands, handball, Located between the tennis, and basketball courts eastern and western 1.8 miles St. Michael's Playground 5.43 and other recreational BQE connectors and South options for young children; 30th Avenue also includes a wading pool, swings, and slides. 0.85 mile Steinway Community 47th Street to 48th Contains handball courts, South- 1.31 Playground Street, 20th Avenue playgrounds, spray showers Southeast 20th Road to 20th 0.7 miles Contains handball courts and Steinway Playground Avenue, 37th Street to 0.8 South playgrounds 38th Street Contains a sitting place with 54th Street and 31st 2.0 miles Plantings of ivy, juniper, Strippoli Triangle 0.06 Avenue South maiden grass, and oriental poppy 1st Avenue to FDR 1.6 miles Contains a recreation center, T. Jefferson Park Drive, East 111th West- 15.52 baseball fields, handball Street to 114th Street Northwest courts, and playground Astoria Boulevard, Two Coves Community 1.9 miles Contains a walking area and 30th Avenue, and 8th 0.58 Garden Southwest a garden Street 29th to 30th Avenues, 1.7 miles Contains handball courts and Van Alst Playground 14th Street to 21st 0.9 Southwest playgrounds Street 1.1 mile East River and Hell Contains barbecuing areas, Wards Island Park West- 68 Gate baseball fields, playgrounds Southwest

Distance/ Area Park Address Direction Park Description (acres) from LCEP Contains handball and basketball courts, a see saw, a jungle gym, a gated 20th Avenue, 37th 0.6 miles Woodtree Playground 1.03 wading pool, slides, swings, a Street, 38th Street South comfort station, drinking fountain, benches, and a flagpole Source: City Department of Parks and Recreation, 2010.

3.12.1.10 Hospitals/Emergency Room and Clinics

There are several hospitals within a short distance of the Site. The closest hospital to the Site is the Mt. Sinai Hospital at 2510 30th Avenue (1.6 miles). Mt. Sinai Hospital is listed in the AGS Facility Response Plan as the closest hospital to the Site in case of emergency. AGC personnel keep in contact as part of the normal implementation of the Facility Response Plan and have been in contact with hospital administrators to advise them of the proposed Project. Other nearby hospitals include the Floating Hospital located at 2515 Queens Plaza, in Long Island City, approximately 3.1 miles from the Site, and the New York Hospital Medical Center - Queens, which is located at 56-45 Main Street, 4.6 miles from the Site. A number of smaller ambulatory health care facilities also operate within a 2-mile radius of the Site (DCP, 2010).

In addition to hospitals, as detailed on the Table 3.12-5, a total of nine senior facilities are located in the vicinity of the Site.

Table 3.12-5: Senior Facilities in the Vicinity of the Site Facility Address Distance and Direction East Harlem Coal (J.W.J. Senior Center) 2205 First Avenue 1.85 miles West-Northwest Leonard Covello Senior Center 312 East 109th Street 1.95 miles West-Northwest U.B.A. Beatrice Lewis Senior Center 2322 Third Avenue 2.0 miles Northwest CCBA/Betances Senior Center 401 St. Anns Avenue 1.65 miles North-Northwest Maria Isabel Senior Center 787 East 149th Street 1.75 miles North-Northwest MillBrook 201 St. Anns Avenue 1.5 miles Northwest Bffy Steinway Senior Center 20-43 Steinway Street 0.8 miles South Hanac Lindsay Senior Center 29-19 24th Avenue 1.25 miles Southwest Jasa – Astoria 27-35 Crescent Street 1.7 miles Southwest Source: DCP, 2010.

3.12.1.11 Water Supply

The AGS Facility currently obtains water from the City municipal water supply system. The City’s municipal water is obtained from the Catskill/Delaware System located in Delaware, Greene, Schoharie, Sullivan, and Ulster counties, west of the Hudson River (DEP, 2010). The City surface reservoir system provides approximately 1.0 billion gallons of safe drinking water daily to over 8 million residents of the City (DEP, 2010). The LCEP Equipment is expected to use a maximum of approximately 98,000 gallons of municipal water per day when firing natural gas and 380,000 gallons of municipal water per day when firing fuel oil.

3.12.1.12 Solid Waste

Solid waste generated from the existing AGS Facility is currently removed and disposed of by private waste contractors and does not rely on municipal services.

3.12.2 Potential Impacts

The construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on any community facilities and services. The AGS Facility is currently utilizing the community services identified in Section 3.12.1 and has procedures in place with these services. The activities at the LCEP Equipment will be similar in nature to the AGS Facility and will not create any significant demands for additional community facilities or services, nor require significant adjustments to current practices. The local police, fire, USCG and emergency response personnel are familiar with the AGS Facility, and any additional training specifically related to the LCEP Equipment will be conducted. The staff is expected to be expanded with approximately 25 to 30 new permanent positions. These positions will likely be filled by local residents to the extent possible. This increase in permanent staff, even if filled from outside the community, is small and therefore will not be an additional burden on any of the local services.

3.12.2.1 Police Protection

Prior to construction activities, AGC will correspond with the 114th Precinct of the NYPD, as necessary, to inform them of the Project and continue the established communication. All constructions activities will be conducted in accordance with local laws relating to the use of streets and sidewalks, and the movement of materials over city streets and navigable water.

The LCEP will not create an additional significant demand on the police force. In addition, no significant increases in population in the vicinity of the Site are expected that would indirectly affect the NYPD.

3.12.2.2 Fire Protection

The existing AGS Facility operates under an established fire protection policy which utilizes personnel and equipment from on-site trained employees supplemented by FDNY personnel, if necessary. Any additional on-site fire protection that may be required for the LCEP Equipment will be addressed with an extension of the existing policy to the additional equipment. Local engine and ladder companies are familiar with the existing AGS Facility and

routinely inspect the AGS Facility for compliance. The engine and ladder trucks will be available for the LCEP Equipment just as they have been historically available for the AGS Facility in the event that fire fighting services are necessary. AGC will meet with the local engine and ladder companies, as well as city fire department officials during the design and construction permitting process to confirm that all standards are being met to the satisfaction of the local Fire Chief. Site tours will be conducted during construction. It is not anticipated that FDNY will require any additional staff or equipment to be able to provide service to the Site. In this way, fire protection at the Site will not represent a significant burden to community fire fighting resources.

3.12.2.3 Local Emergency Planning Committee

The LEPC is currently knowledgeable of the AGS Facility. AGC will meet with the LEPC to assure that they are apprised of the LCEP. All facility documentation required by the LEPC will be updated to include the pertinent information regarding the LCEP. It is not anticipated that the LEPC will require any additional staffing to monitor the LCEP Equipment. The construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment will not have any adverse impact to the LEPC.

3.12.2.4 New York State Emergency Management Office

SEMO is fully informed as to current operations at the AGS Facility. AGC will meet with SEMO to assure that they are apprised of the LCEP Equipment. All facility documentation required by SEMO will be updated to include the pertinent information regarding the LCEP Equipment. It is not anticipated that SEMO will require any additional staffing to monitor the LCEP Equipment. The construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment will not have any adverse impact on SEMO’s operations.

3.12.2.5 United States Coast Guard

The LCEP Equipment will not create any additional demand for USCG services and as such will have no significant adverse impact on these services.

3.12.2.6 Sanitation Facilities

Sanitary wastewater from incremental employees at the Site will be discharged to the municipal sewer system. Final design of floor drain systems may add a minimal, intermittent volume to the local wastewater system, as will blowdown from the cooling system, HRSG and auxiliary boiler. Therefore no adverse impact with respect to sanitary wastewater discharge and treatment for the LCEP Equipment is expected. Please see Section 3.2 for further detail on wastewater discharge and treatment for the LCEP Equipment.

3.12.2.7 Educational Facilities

The construction workers required for the LCEP Equipment will not require any significant relocation of people to the area due to the relatively short construction timeframe of approximately 24 months. Likewise, no significant population increases are necessary for the

proper operation of the LCEP Equipment. Therefore, construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment will not significantly increase the student population of local educational facilities.

3.12.2.8 Libraries

The LCEP will not create any additional demand for library services and as such will have no significant adverse impact on these services.

3.12.2.9 Parks

The LCEP will not create any additional demand or impact on area parks and outdoor recreational opportunities, and as such will have no significant adverse impact on these services. Visual impacts due to the LCEP Equipment from area parks are addressed in Section 3.5.

3.12.2.10 Hospitals/Emergency Room and Clinics

The hospitals in the area provide a network of health care facilities and the NYFD emergency medical services stations, are sufficient to accommodate the emergency needs associated with the short-term construction workforce of the LCEP Equipment. AGC already has Mt. Sinai included in the Facility Response Plan, and has therefore established and continues to maintain contact with the facility. AGC has, in addition, been in contact with the administration of the hospital to inform them of the proposed Project and will continue to update and maintain the communications through the construction and operation of the AGS Facility. AGC’s safety policies will be strictly enforced to reduce the potential for the need for these services. It is not expected that the medical needs during construction or operation will have a significant effect on the community’s ability to receive medical services.

3.12.2.11 Water Supply

The LCEP Equipment will require a maximum of approximately 98,000 gallons of municipal water per day when firing natural gas and 380,000 gallons of municipal water per day when firing fuel oil. This estimated additional water usage is expected to be easily accommodated by the municipal system and there will be no adverse impact with respect to water supply from the LCEP Equipment. Please see Section 3.2 for further detail on water supply and usage for the LCEP Equipment and the design and operational measures that mitigate total consumptive requirements.

3.12.2.12 Solid Waste

The Site will continue to utilize the AGS Facility method of solid waste disposal and therefore will not rely on municipal services. The amount of solid waste expected to be generated during the construction and operation will not exceed the capabilities of the current refuse or recycling collection standards and as such will have no significant adverse impact on these services.

3.12.3 Proposed Mitigation

Given that there will be no significant adverse impact on any community facilities resulting from the LCEP, no mitigation will be required. AGC will minimize the burdens on each of the community services by implementing a waste recycling program to minimize solid waste, the use of a dry fin-fan cooler in lieu of a wet cooling tower, water conservation technologies in the sanitary facilities of the new and old sections of the AGS, and rain water capture for irrigation.

3.12.4 References

New York City Department of City Planning (DCP), 2010. District Profiles. Accessed September 9, 2010. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/lucds/cdstart.shtml

New York City Department of Environmental Protection, 2009. New York City 2009 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report. Accessed July 22, 2010. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/wsstate09.pdf

New York City Police Department, 2010. Borough and Precinct Crime Statistics, 114th Precinct. Accessed July 22, 2010. www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/nypd

New York City Department of Environmental Protection, 2003. Water Pollution Control Plants. Table 3-1 NYCDEP WPCP Construction Dates and Capacities. Accessed July 22, 2010. http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/coastweb/nycdepharbor_survey/docs/factors/plant.htm

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, 2010. Accessed September 9, 2010. http://www.nycparks.org

National Center for Education Statistics, 2010. Accessed September 9, 2010. http://nces.ed.gov

New York City Office of Emergency Management, 2010. About OEM. Accessed September 17, 2010. http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/about/about.shtml

3.13 Communication Facilities

This section presents information on the existing conditions, potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures related to communication facilities due to the construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment.

3.13.1 Existing Conditions

The Site is located at the AGS in Queens, New York within a larger complex known locally as the ConEd Complex that is bounded on the north and west by the East River, to the east by Luyster (Steinway) Creek and 37th Street, and to the south by 20th Avenue. The entrance to the ConEd Complex is located at 18-01 20th Avenue. The LCEP Equipment will be located at the FOTF on a parcel of approximately 10.1 acres that is approximately 2,400 feet to the northeast of the Existing AGS Units. These parcels are connected by utilities and easements and have been determined to be contiguous and adjacent for air permitting purposes by the NYSDEC.

The AGS is connected to two ConEd substations located within the ConEd Complex, Astoria West and Astoria East. The interconnection of the AGS to the ConEd system is at 138 kilovolts. The

Astoria West substation is located approximately 500 feet northeast of the AGS, while Astoria East is 2,000 feet to the east along 20th Avenue (see Figure 2.0-2). The output from the existing AGS Units 3, 4 and 5 can be switched between either substation. The feeders from the generator step-up transformers for each existing AGS unit run both overhead and underground to Astoria West and on overhead transmission lines to Astoria East. The connection of existing AGS Unit 2 to the Astoria East substation uses one of two overhead feeders previously reserved for existing AGS Unit 3, while Unit 3 continues to use the other feeder. The LCEP Equipment is expected to be connected to the East substation via the present connections for Unit 2 and one of the feeders from Unit 3.

3.13.2 Potential Impacts

3.13.2.1 Electric and Magnetic Fields

Buildings, stacks, and structures located throughout the ConEd Complex predate the installation of microwave communications, television, radio or standard telephone communications in the surrounding environs. AGC is not aware of any historic or ongoing interference due to electric fields resulting from the operation of the AGS Facility. There are no known effects on microwave communications, television, radio or standard telephone communications resulting from the operation of the existing switchyard.

The LCEP Equipment will be electrically interconnecting into the grid via existing connections at or near the AGS. The electric and magnetic field levels from the transmission line between the LCEP Equipment and AGS will be comparable to the existing levels associated with the current operation of the AGS Facility. The LCEP Equipment will be interconnected to the AGS using a 138-kilovolt transmission line.

There is no authorized public access or thoroughfare crossed by the transmission line between the Site and the AGS; the LCEP is not subject to public rights-of-way magnetic field limits. Given the fact that the general public cannot access the ConEd Complex, there are no anticipated adverse impacts from electric and magnetic fields resulting from the operation of the LCEP Equipment.

3.13.2.2 Microwave Communication Systems

Microwave telecommunication systems are wireless point-to-point links that communicate between two sites (antennae) and require clear line-of-sight conditions between each antenna. The telecommunications include television, radio, cellular/personal communications system telephones, and land mobile radio.

The LCEP Equipment is being designed in accordance with Federal Communications Commission regulations and therefore will not affect any microwave telecommunication systems.

3.13.2.3 Television, Radio, Cellular/Personal Communications Systems Telephone Analysis

AGC is unaware of any existing interference or historic issues with area telecommunications due to the existing interconnection from the AGS to the adjacent utility switchyard. Because the proposed LCEP Equipment interconnect will utilize existing connections from the Existing AGS Units, it is not anticipated that any interference to television, radio, or cellular/personal communications systems frequencies will occur due to the LCEP Equipment.

3.13.2.4 Federal Aviation Administration

The FAA is responsible for the safety of civil aviation. The FAA also develops and operates a system of air traffic control and navigation for both civil and military aircraft.

The stack has been designed to be as short as possible while achieving compliance with ambient air quality standards. The stack will be similar in stature to, and in many cases shorter than, other structures in the vicinity of the Site. Consequently, it is anticipated that no adverse impacts to FAA communications will result from the LCEP Equipment. Furthermore, AGC will file a Notice of Proposed Construction with the FAA as the proposed stack is 205 feet tall, which exceeds the FAA’s 200-foot threshold. The FAA’s response will confirm that there will be no obstruction to air navigation as a result of the LCEP Equipment stack.

3.13.3 Proposed Mitigation

Given that there will be no significant adverse impact to any communication facilities from the LCEP Equipment, no mitigation will be required.

3.14 Land Use and Zoning

This section presents information on the existing conditions, potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures concerning land use and zoning due to the construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment. The purpose of this section is to present and evaluate the relationship of the LCEP Equipment to existing land uses and zoning designations of the Site and the surrounding community. Specifically, this section describes the LCEP Equipment’s compatibility with the character and development trends in the area, as well as with surrounding land uses and community resources. This section uses a 1-km radius from the Site (Zoning Study Area) as the framework for focusing on and evaluating compliance with zoning designations and potential impacts that could result in the near vicinity. In addition, this section includes an evaluation of the LCEP Equipment’s consistency with the requirements of local ordinances and local comprehensive plans, including developmental goals, coastal policies and stipulations contained in the City WRP (DCP, 2002). Land use and zoning

designations in the Zoning Study Area were determined through a review of City codes, tax parcel maps, aerial photographs, USGS and NYSGIS files, and a field review conducted during the fall of 2010.

3.14.1 Existing Conditions

3.14.1.1 Regional Setting

The Site will occupy approximately 10.1 acres of the ConEd Complex, which is bounded on the north and west by the East River, to the east by Luyster (Steinway) Creek and 37th Street, and to the south by 20th Avenue. The Site is located approximately 2,400 feet to the northeast of the Existing AGS Units and 3,200 feet to the north northeast of the entrance to the ConEd Complex.

3.14.1.2 Project Area Land Use

The LCEP Equipment is proposed to be constructed on an existing industrial property located in an M3-1 industrial zoned area, a designation representing the heaviest industrial zoning area promulgated by the City. Figure 3.14-1 and Table 3.14-1 detail the dominant land uses in the Zoning Study Area.

Table 3.14-1: Proportion of Dominant Land Uses within the Zoning Study Area

Description Acres Percentage Industrial 320.4 41.32 Transportation, Utilities, Communication 13.8 1.78 Commercial and Services 55.8 7.2 Residential 21.9 2.82 Streams and Canals 1.5 0.19 Bays and Estuaries 362.0 46.69 Source: NYSGIS Clearinghouse, USGS Land Use, 1990.

As indicated on Figure 3.14-1 and Table 3.14-1, industrial land uses dominate the area in the vicinity of the Site, representing approximately 47% of the land area within the Zoning Study Area. Other notable land uses in the area include Transportation, Utility and Communication, which comprise approximately 21% of the land area. Commercial and Services, Residential, Streams and Canals, and Bays and Estuaries comprise the remainder of land in the vicinity of the Site, totaling approximately 12%, 7%, 7% and 6%, respectively. Residential development in the vicinity of the Site is concentrated across 20th Avenue from the entrance to the ConEd Complex, with the closest residence approximately 3,200 feet away from the Site. No residential development occurs adjacent to the Site. As Table 3.14-1 indicates, based on prevailing industrialized nature of the area within the Zoning Study Area, the developmental goals of the LCEP are consistent with the existing surrounding land usage.

3.14.1.3 Project Area Zoning

The entire area of the Site is located within the ConEd Complex and zoned as a Manufacturing District, M3-1 (Figure 3.14-2). As stated in the City Zoning Handbook (DCP, 2006), “M3 districts are for heavy industries that generate noise, traffic or pollutants. Typical uses include power plants. M3 districts are usually located near the waterfront and buffered from residential areas.”

Similarly, as stated in Chapter 1 of Article IV of the City Zoning Resolution governing manufacturing uses, M3-1 zoning districts are designed to accommodate the essential heavy industrial uses, which involve more objectionable influences and hazards, and which, therefore, cannot reasonably be expected to conform to those performance standards which are appropriate for most other types of industrial development. No new residences or community facilities are permitted in M3-1 districts.

Other zoning classifications that exist within the Zoning Study Area include M1-1, C8-2, and R5 (see Figure 3.14-2). The M1-1 designation corresponds to a light manufacturing district located approximately 2,000 feet to the south of the Site. The C8-2 area corresponds to the Rikers Island correctional facility located across the East River to the northeast of the ConEd Complex. The R5 residential area corresponds to the residences located across 20th Avenue from the south side of the ConEd Complex.

The Project can be constructed “as-of-right” pursuant to Article IV of the City Zoning Resolution, since the Site is located in the M3-1 zoning district in which electric power or steam generation plants are permitted uses (Permitted Use under Section 42-15 B of the Zoning Resolution; Use Group 18). Since the property on which the LCEP Equipment will be located is part of an existing power plant use, no special use permits are required under Article VI, Chapter 2, of the Zoning Resolution (Special Regulations Applying in Waterfront Areas). With the “as-of-right” designation, the LCEP Equipment need only obtain a ministerial building permit from the City Department of Buildings or the City Department of Small Business Services, which is charged with issuing such permits in certain waterfront areas.

The City Zoning Resolution

The LCEP Equipment is subject to the performance standards set forth at Section 42-20 of the City Zoning Resolution. The City Zoning Resolution establishes four types of standards: bulk requirements, yard requirements, service requirements, and performance standards. A brief discussion of each of these types of standards, with a summary of the specific requirement for each standard follows.

Definition of Lot for Zoning Analysis

As previously discussed, the original ConEd Complex has been divided into four tax lots. Despite the division of the ConEd Complex, this land remains a single zoning lot in the records of the City (Zoning Lot). A study requested by the Commissioner of the Department of Buildings was completed at the time of divestiture which demonstrated general compliance

of the ConEd Complex with the requirements of the City Zoning Resolution and provides guidance on zoning rights for each of the four tax lots. The study, since recorded as the Zoning Lot Development Agreement, establishes additional restrictions on the development of each of the four tax lots that form the Zoning Lot, and requires that each of the four tax lots comply with the Zoning Resolution as if it were a separate zoning lot. The LCEP Equipment will be located on one of these four tax lots (FOTF Lot). In the following text and referenced tables, Site refers to the portion of the FOTF Lot on which the LCEP Equipment will be located. Where both the Zoning Lot and the FOTF Lot are in compliance, no reference to the Zoning Lot will be made.

Bulk Requirements

Bulk requirements are found at Article IV of the City Zoning Resolution. The most significant of the bulk requirements is that which establishes a maximum floor area ratio. In the M3-1 zone, the allowable floor area ratio is 2.0 (meaning two times the land area of the zoning lot). The FOTF Lot is 544,500 square feet. The floor area ratio provides for an allowable maximum floor area of 1,089,000 square feet. The floor area of the LCEP is approximately 33,100 square feet, for a floor area ratio of <0.1, which complies with the floor area ratio requirement.

Yard Requirements

Yard requirements determine the required front, side, and rear yard. To summarize, the yard requirements in the M3-1 zone are as follows:

Side lot setbacks are not required in the M3-1 zone, but if provided it shall be no less than 8 feet. Side lot line setbacks provided by the LCEP Equipment meet the minimum set back requirement.

Rear yard setbacks in the M3-1 zone are 20 feet. The rear yard setback will meet the setback requirement.

Height and setback requirements of the M3-1 zone are defined by the sky exposure plane that is based on a ratio of the height of the tallest structure to its setback from the street. The standard allows for a 7.6-foot rise in building height for every 1-foot of horizontal distance, or an upward slope of 80 degrees. The tallest proposed structure height for the LCEP is 205 feet above grade, setback 107 feet from the lot line, which is approximately one-half mile from the nearest public access road. As a result, the LCEP Equipment is in compliance with the height and setback requirements.

Special regulations around major airports apply a limit on the height of the tallest structure by prohibiting this structure from entering an approach surface, transitional surface, or conical surface, whichever is more restrictive. This requirement is discussed in more detail under special regulations.

Service Requirements

Service requirements consist of parking, loading dock areas, and signage. The existing FOTF Lot already has adequate parking space in conformance with the applicable service requirements. To the extent additional parking space is needed as a result of the LCEP, it will conform with the service requirements as generally described below.

The parking standards require 1 space per 2,000 feet of floor area or 1 parking space for every 3 employees, whichever is less. The AGS Facility is providing 8 to 10 parking spaces. With anticipated operational employment of 25 to 30 persons. The minimum number of parking spaces required is 8 to 10. Therefore, the LCEP meets the parking requirements of zoning.

Each parking space must measure no less than 18 feet long and 8 feet 6 inches wide. The parking spaces provided shall meet these minimum measurements. Each parking space is designed to be 20 feet long by 10 feet wide.

For all accessory off-street parking, adequate unobstructed standing or maneuvering space shall be provided for each parking space.

Performance Standards

Performance standards are established for manufacturing districts to regulate activities in these districts that could otherwise create a nuisance condition. Performance standards in the City Zoning Resolution include those for noise, dust, odor, humidity, fire and explosion hazard, and vibration. The LCEP Equipment complies with all of the performance standards as described below.

Noise

Section 42-21 of the City Zoning Resolution limits the noise level from any on-site activity to specified dB levels according to octave band. Noise is defined as the sound pressure level resulting from any open or enclosed activity. The dB limits established are the maximum for any point on or beyond the lot line. Where an industrial district adjoins a residential area, the dB limits are reduced by 6 dB for any point at the district boundary with the residential area.

Section 3.7 presents a detailed noise study for the LCEP Equipment. For purposes of the zoning assessment, the maximum predicted noise level at the boundary with the residential area was selected to make the determination of compliance. Table 3.7-12 provides the results of the noise study, and demonstrates that the predicted noise levels are below the applicable performance standards for the residential area.

Further, as detailed in Section 3.7, the predicted noise levels from construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment will comply with the requirements of the City Zoning Resolution.

Vibration

Section 42-22 of the City Zoning Resolution limits vibration from any on-site activity in dB levels by octave band. The vibration level limits shall not be exceeded at any point on or beyond the lot line. Where the district adjoins a residential district, the limit shall not be exceeded at the district boundary or within the residential district. The performance standard for the M3-1 district is no more than 0.0001 inches of displacement at a frequency of 60 cycles per second.

The foundation of the LCEP Equipment will be heavily reinforced concrete resting on a piling driven in to resistance. The foundation will be designed to carry the weight of the LCEP Equipment without significant total or differential settlement and with weight at least equal to total machine weight. Foundations will be designed to assure that the natural frequencies of the sub foundation will be at least 20% of the machine speed to avoid resonance; with amplitudes (horizontal and vertical) not exceeding 0.00003 inches at machine operating speed. This amplitude will decrease over distance to the lot line. Thus, the LCEP Equipment will be well within the vibration level limits established by the performance standard for the M3-1 zone.

Smoke, Dust and Particulate Matter

Section 42-23 of the City Zoning Resolution prescribes standards for smoke emissions density as well as the quantity of particulate emission expressed as dust or particulate emissions. Section 3.4 presents the air emission analysis. The LCEP Equipment will be in compliance with this standard.

Odorous Material

The City Zoning Resolution prescribes standards for emissions of odorous material in a broad statement that indicates that emissions of odor shall not cause a public nuisance or hazard beyond the property lines. The operation of a combined cycle CT is not an odorous activity. Ammonia is used in the emission control system, but the tank storage system will be designed to prevent any odors from the storage of the material. There will be no other materials used at the Site that might contribute to unusual odors or nuisance odors. Therefore, the LCEP complies with this provision of the City Zoning Resolution.

Toxic Materials

Section 42-25 of the City Zoning Resolution prescribes standards for the release of toxic or noxious materials (solid, liquid, or gaseous), which are defined as a material that is likely to destroy life or impair health or can cause human injury or property damage. The performance standard requires that emissions of toxic or noxious materials shall meet the DEP limits or shall not be detrimental to, or endanger public health, safety, comfort, or other aspects of general welfare.

The only materials on the Site that may be considered toxic are ammonia and the chemicals that will be used for boiler water treatment. Ammonia will be used on the Site as needed for air pollution control, and will be stored in a tank designed for this purpose in a 19% aqueous solution.

Ammonia injection is a component of the air pollution control system proposed for the LCEP Equipment. Ammonia emissions have been documented in Section 3.4 and are below the standards applied by the NYSDEC and DEP for emissions of ammonia. Therefore, emissions from the LCEP Equipment will comply with the City Zoning Resolution performance standard for emissions of toxic or noxious materials.

Further, all activities relating to solid and hazardous waste management will be conducted in a manner consistent with industry standards, and in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

Radiation Hazards

This section of the City Zoning Resolution establishes standards for the use of radioactive and fissionable materials. No radioactive or fissionable materials will be used at the Site, making this section of the City Zoning Resolution inapplicable.

Fire and Explosive Hazards

Section 42-27 of the City Zoning Resolution regulates the storage and use of flammable and combustible materials. Such materials are designated by class based on their level of flammability or combustibility into Class I, II, III and IV.

The only new chemicals to be used by the LCEP Equipment are boiler water treatment chemicals and ammonia for the emission control system on the SiemensCT. These chemicals are either solid or classified as Class I materials (liquids with an open cup flash point greater than 182°F or more), which may be stored or utilized in all Manufacturing Districts (M3-1) without restriction.

Supplemental Use Restrictions

Section 42-40 of the City Zoning Resolution requires that any commercial or manufacturing activities in the M3-1 zone established by new development, enlargement, or extension, shall be contained in an enclosed building, if located within 300 feet of the residential district boundary. This section also provides that open storage of materials or products may be permitted within 200 feet of a residential district boundary if such materials are effectively screened from the residential district boundary by a solid wall or fence. Certain uses may be excluded from this requirement. Excluded uses include accessory parking, petroleum storage, and handling, as well as gas storage.

The LCEP Equipment is located well over 300 feet from the residential district boundary on 20th Avenue.

Special Regulations (Airports and Waterfronts)

Article 6 of the City Zoning Resolution sets forth certain special regulations. One of these special regulations pertains to the height of buildings in areas surrounding major airports. Other special regulations pertain to land uses in the waterfront area.

Chapter 2 of Article VI of the City Zoning Resolution sets forth the special regulations applying in waterfront areas. A "waterfront block" or "waterfront zoning lot" is a “block…or zoning lot in the waterfront area having a boundary at grade coincident with or seaward of the shoreline.” The LCEP Equipment is within a defined waterfront block and would constitute a development under the definitions of this section. Beyond that inclusion, developments in the M3-1 zone comprised of Use Group 18 (electric power or steam generation plants) are largely exempt from the requirements to provide public access corridors, visual corridors, tree plantings, and other specifications of the special regulations for the waterfront area.

Project Interconnections

No modifications to the existing connections to water and wastewater service in the public roadway are proposed. New connections would be within the ConEd Complex. Interconnection to gas, electric, or other types of interconnections or improvements necessary to serve the LCEP Equipment or to provide capacity to accommodate the LCEP Equipment, will be made in conjunction with the existing AGS Facility. Therefore, there will be no impact from the LCEP Equipment on off-site locations.

3.14.1.4 Other Project Area Designations

The Site was analyzed to determine if area resource designations (other than zoning) occur in the vicinity. Specifically, the following resource designation areas were investigated with respect to the Site: existing economic development zones; designated coastal zone boundaries; Wild, Scenic and Recreation Corridors; Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance; and Critical Environmental Areas. As illustrated in Figure 3.14-3 only economic development areas (e.g., Industrial Business Zone) and coastal zone boundaries (e.g., Coastal Management Program) occur in the vicinity of the Site. There are no Wild, Scenic and Recreation Corridors, Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance, or Critical Environmental Areas occurring in the vicinity of the Site.

3.14.1.5 Consistency with Local Comprehensive Plans

In addition to compliance with the City Zoning Resolution, as discussed in Section 3.14.1.3, the LCEP Equipment has been designed to ensure that construction and operation is fully consistent, and in compliance with, applicable local water, air and noise regulations (see Sections 3.2, 3.4, and 3.7, respectively, for further discussion). AGC has also reviewed other local ordinances to determine their applicability to the LCEP Equipment and evaluated the LCEP Equipment’s compliance with those ordinances. Based on the review of the City Charter, the City Administrative Code, and the RCNY, the construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment is anticipated to be in full compliance with all local ordinances.

New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program

The WRP establishes the City’s policies for development and use of the waterfront, and aims to promote activities appropriate to various waterfront locations. The guiding principle of the WRP is to maximize the benefits derived from economic development, environmental preservation, and public use of the waterfront, while minimizing the conflicts among these objectives.

The WRP is authorized under the state’s Coastal Management Program, which stems from federal coastal zone legislation. It was approved by the City Council, the New York State Department of State and the U.S. Department of Commerce. Article 42 of the State Executive Law, and its implementing regulations at 19 NYCRR Part 600, require that a proposed project within the coastal zone and requiring action on the part of a state agency, such as a permit, must be consistent with state coastal policies found in the regulations or, if a local WRP exists, with the WRP. In this instance, the LCEP Equipment is located within the designated coastal zone (see Figure 3.14-3) and therefore must be consistent with the policies set forth in the WRP.

The WRP designates six areas as Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas, and three areas as Special Natural Waterfront Areas. The Site does not fall within any of these areas.

A proposed project is deemed consistent with the WRP when it will not substantially hinder the achievement of any of the policies and, where practicable, will advance one or more of the policies.

The policy on water-dependent and industrial uses is particularly relevant for the LCEP because even though the Site itself is not on the waterfront, the Site is located approximately 200 feet or more south of the East River waterfront, and fuel will be regularly delivered to the AGS Facility by barge and then transported by roadway to the Site. As stated in WRP Policy 2, “New York City’s waterfront supports waterborne and airborne cargo and passenger transportation, industrial activity, and municipal and public utility services, including energy generation, storage and distribution facilities. These working waterfront uses have locational requirements that make portions of the coastal zone especially valuable as industrial areas.”

In order to determine WRP consistency, state agencies responsible for permitting must complete a New York State Department of State Coastal Management Program “Coastal Assessment Form” and the applicant must complete a City WRP “Consistency Assessment Form”. Both completed forms are provided in Appendix G. As indicated on the forms, it is clear that the LCEP is consistent with the coastal policies contained in the WRP.

Fair Share Provision (Section 203) of the New York City Charter

The Fair Share Provision (Section 203) of the City Charter was enacted in 1989 “to further the fair distribution among communities of the burdens and benefits associated with city facilities, consistent with community needs for services and efficient and cost effective delivery of services and with due regard for the social and economic impacts of such facilities

upon the areas surrounding the sites.” Section 203 was prompted by the concern of low- income communities and communities of color that they were targets for the siting of unwanted City facilities. Although the Fair Share Provision only applies to the siting of City- owned facilities, AGC has considered the LCEP in accordance with the notion that the New York City Charter revision preceded the restructuring of the electric industry, and that privately owned power plants still represent an important public service.

AGC believes that the LCEP is consistent with the Fair Share Provision, because of the historic industrial activity at the ConEd Complex and proposed reduction in air emissions. The LCEP will provide a net benefit to the community by improving air quality, in addition to increasing the generating capacity in order to service local residents of the Astoria and northwest Queens area.

PlaNYC

PlaNYC is a 25 year plan for New York City and establishes 10 goals for the City’s sustainable future. The plan focuses on five key dimensions: land, air, water, energy, and transportation. The energy goal is to “provide cleaner, more reliable power for every New Yorker by upgrading the energy infrastructure” (NYC, 2010). Four strategies were established to achieve the energy goal: coordinate energy planning, increase efficiency of buildings, expand clean power supply, and modernize delivery infrastructure.

AGC believes that the LCEP is consistent with PlaNYC, because of the increased efficiency that will be achieved by replacing generating capacity at the Existing AGS Units with the LCEP Equipment. PlaNYC establishes a target goal of increasing the capacity of cleaner energy supply by 2,000 to 3,000 MW by repowering old plants, constructing new ones, and building dedicated transmission lines (PlaNYC, 2010b). The addition of approximately 410 MW as a result of the LCEP represents a contribution toward total target goal for increased energy capacity.

3.14.2 Potential Impacts

It was determined that the LCEP Equipment can be constructed “as-of-right” pursuant to Article IV of the City Zoning Resolution based on meetings with officials from the DCP, and as described in Section 3.14.1.3. The “as-of-right” action is permissible as the Site is properly zoned (M3-1) for electric power or steam generation plants (Permitted Use under Section 42-15 B of the Zoning Resolution Use Group 18). In addition, since the Site is located within the ConEd Complex and water-dependant fuel delivery already occurs, no special use permits are required under Article VI, Chapter 2, of the City Zoning Resolution (Special Regulations Applying in Waterfront Areas). Moreover, as detailed throughout this section, the LCEP Equipment has been carefully designed to ensure that construction and operation activities fully comply with all local ordinances, and are consistent with future land use and local comprehensive plans identified in this document.

3.14.3 Mitigation

Because the LCEP Equipment will be in full compliance with all local ordinances, and consistent with future land use and local comprehensive plans, no mitigation measures with respect to land use and zoning are necessary. Even though no mitigation is necessary, significant green design measures have been incorporated into the LCEP Equipment.

4.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

As discussed in detail throughout Section 3.1 through Section 3.14, the construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. In fact, the LCEP will result in a positive environmental impact and will also help to meet the City’s projected increase in electrical capacity demand by increasing the average capacity of the AGS Facility by approximately 230 MW. While increasing the capacity of the existing AGS Facility with new highly efficient generating equipment, actual facility-wide air pollutant emissions from the AGS Facility will be reduced (see Section 3.4).

Thus, there will be no unavoidable adverse impacts from the LCEP.

5.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

In accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(v), the DEIS includes a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Alternatives to be considered in this section include alternate project size, alternate project location, alternate project layout, alternate plant technologies (peaking vs. combined cycle), and the “no action” alternative. Among the alternatives considered and addressed in this DEIS are repowering, shutdown of the existing AGS Facility, and shutdown of existing sources comparable to the capacity of the new source (i.e., 500 MW old for 500 MW new). The no action alternative, which is required for consideration under SEQRA, represents the environmental conditions that would exist if current land use and activities were to continue as is.

The following analysis of potential alternatives for the LCEP is limited to a geographic region that is practical and reasonable for the given project. For the purposes of this alternatives analysis, the geographic scope under consideration is within the boundaries of the metropolitan New York City area. AGC did not consider alternatives outside of this geographic area due to the fact that an alternative outside this area would be the similar to the no action alternative since it would not add generating capacity within Queens.

5.1 Alternative Project Size

Projects of varying sizes were considered during preliminary planning for the LCEP. AGC evaluated the possibilities of both smaller projects and larger projects. A substantially smaller project would pose challenges to the economic feasibility of the LCEP due to fixed costs that would not be substantially reduced by a smaller project. The costs for effort involved in project development, engineering, environmental analyses and permitting, interconnections, financing, and project management are more or less constant over a wide range of project sizes on any given site. For the most part, the level of effort for field and literature research, desktop studies, and related required calculations, computations and written analyses remain relatively constant over the range of project sizes from 50 MW to 500 MW. Thus from the standpoint of economies of scale, it is prudent to develop the largest project that can be accommodated on any particular site. The smaller the plant with regard to these fixed costs, the greater the installed cost per kW of generating capacity. In addition, smaller projects would not allow the use of the latest state-of-the-art technology, and would overall result in a less efficient facility because, the use of a smaller CT would result in a less efficient unit as no other CT commercially available can meet the performance efficiency of the SiemensCT. This would also result in a higher emission rate per unit of electricity generated.

Larger projects (greater than 500 MW) were determined to be impracticable due to space constraints at the Site. Another potential negative factor against a larger project at the Site, if they could be made to fit, is the potential increased likelihood of additional impacts with respect to visual, noise, water use, and air emissions.

5.2 Alternative Project Location

Alternative Project locations within the metropolitan New York City area were limited to those locations that are owned by or under option to AGC. The only other AGC owned or controlled

properties in the metropolitan area are the Gowanus Generating Station and the Narrows Generating Station located in Brooklyn.

In October 2009, the NYSDEC approved the installation of one General Electric LMS100 CT at the existing Gowanus Generating Station as part of the South Pier Improvement Project. Narrows Generating Station offers limited space for new peaking power development. As such, locating additional generation equipment at either the Gowanus Generating Station or Narrows Generating Station is not currently a viable option to meet the stated objectives of the LCEP.

AGC has evaluated several improvement opportunities, including enhancing or replacing the Existing AGS Units, to achieve the goals of increased capacity with decreased environmental effects. A repowering of the existing AGS Facility was permitted under the Public Service Law’s Article X process in 2003. When US Power Generating Company acquired AGC, it performed a technical and commercial review of the approved repowering project and determined that it was uneconomic to build the project as proposed by the previous owners. AGC then commissioned an engineering firm to evaluate the feasibility of locating additional capacity close by the Existing AGS Units in a systematic phased approach, to eliminate the features that made the approved project infeasible. Potential areas for new equipment were identified. Layouts of the maximum capacity that could fit on the locations were determined. The primary items that were to be optimized in a modified project were the avoidance of potential aquatic impacts, reduction of interference with existing operations, and minimization of other environmental concerns such as visual impact and water use. Ultimately, however, it was determined that a modified project close by the Existing AGS Units could not avoid interfering with existing utility infrastructure, and would still require significant remediation and demolition. During demolition and construction activities, the Existing AGS Units would have to be taken off-line for substantial periods, with the resultant loss of revenue. In addition, a modified project was thought to be a significant enough departure from the approved project that a new permitting process would have to be started. These conditions resulted in the inability to develop an economic project in the same footprint as the approved project.

The Site is the only location available for AGC to build the LCEP Equipment for several reasons. Siting the LCEP Equipment at the existing AGS Facility will enable AGC to take advantage of existing and available local utility infrastructure, such as gas, water and electrical interconnections which already exist at the AGS Facility and the adjacent utility substations within the ConEd Complex. Therefore, the environmental impacts associated with the construction of new interconnects will be minimized. Secondly, the Existing AGS Units are comprised of four boilers, which are used to drive four STs. The availability of new, cleaner, state-of-the-art electric generation produced by the SiemensCT will be able to effectively “offset” air emissions from the Existing AGS Units. To facilitate the emissions offsetting strategy, the potential emissions from the LCEP Equipment will be offset by the shutdown of existing AGS Unit 2, and enforceable permit limitations on the AGS Facility. No other location is available that meets these LCEP objectives.

5.3 Alternative Project Layout

Several project layouts were considered during planning sessions for the LCEP. Once turbine sizes and auxiliary components were determined, the range of alternative project layouts was somewhat

limited. AGC and its consultants arranged the LCEP Equipment components to eliminate bulk, attenuate potential noise, and screen components from potential view. Other factors which were considered during the layout determination included the location of existing gas, water and electrical interconnections. Further optimization will continue to be evaluated as the design advances.

5.4 Alternative Plant Technologies

Both simple cycle and combined cycle plant technologies were considered during preliminary planning of the LCEP. Combined cycle CT facilities consist of one or more CT generators equipped with HRSGs to capture heat from the CT exhaust that would otherwise be lost to the environment. Combined cycle plants are generally regarded as efficient units because the steam produced in the HRSGs powers a ST generator to produce additional electric power. As such, the “waste” heat in the turbine exhaust gas results in high thermal efficiency compared to other combustion-based technologies. Of the commercially available units, the proposed SiemensCT has the highest efficiency.

A simple cycle configuration would generate electricity less efficiently because it does not recover the heat of the combustion process to generate additional electricity. As such, adding an equivalent average of 230 MW of capacity to the existing AGS Facility via simple cycle would result in a substantially greater quantity of fuel burned than does the combined cycle alternative. Thus, the installation of the most efficient combined cycle unit (with the SiemensCT) was determined to be the most logical choice in order to achieve the objectives of the LCEP.

Other alternative sources of power generation were considered but dismissed early on in project development due to the presence of various critical flaws. Alternative power generation technologies, such as wind turbines, would require a large area. In comparison, a wind project generating over 200 MW would require a footprint of well over 1,000 acres. Nuclear power plants have not been constructed in the U.S. for over 25 years, due primarily to public opposition, high cost, and concerns over the safe storage and disposal of nuclear waste. These plants need far more room than that available to AGC and also present potential public safety and security/terrorism concerns, particularly in large population centers like New York City. Hydroelectric (in-water turbines or pump storage) plants, while utilizing a renewable resource, may have significant impacts on terrestrial and aquatic resources, land use, and aesthetics. Pump storage facilities can only be developed in places with appropriate water volumes and topographic conditions which generally do not exist in the Site vicinity. Other renewable energy technologies, such as solar power and hydrogen, are still either cost-prohibitive or in development. Aside from cost constraints, utility-scale solar power is not feasible in an area such as the City, where available sunshine is limited.

Although not required by NYSDEC for the alternatives analysis under SEQRA for power producers, in light of neighborhood concerns, it seems prudent to briefly discuss energy efficiency and demand side management. While there is no question that governmental agencies and the utilities should encourage energy efficiency and demand side management programs through financial incentives and educate residential, commercial and industrial users on the advantages to such efforts, there is also wide-spread recognition by the NYISO and the Mayor's office (PlaNYC) that even with aggressive conservation efforts, new cleaner supply will be required to meet demand growth, replace the operation of less efficient plants and help to stabilize prices. The LCEP meets these criteria. In

addition, AGC is undertaking it own energy efficiency and conservation effort at the AGS Facility, as outlined in Sections 9 and 10 concerning energy conservation and environmentally sensitive design.

5.5 Shutdown and Removal of Existing AGS Units

The shutdown and removal of Existing AGS Units were considered during LCEP development. The existing AGS Units consist of three dual-fueled (natural gas and No. 6 oil) units, one natural gas unit, and a small CT. The Existing AGS Units are utilized to meet electric demand and maintain the electric grid stability within New York City. The operation of the SiemensCT will relieve a portion of the load from the Existing AGS Units, allowing them to run less often. AGC has determined that it can shut down Unit 2, which is the oldest, least used and least efficient unit. Shutting down Unit 2 and replacing it with the LCEP Equipment makes environmental sense and is economically feasible. The shutdown would be effective upon commercial operation of the LCEP Equipment. Shutdown for purposes of the LCEP would be as defined in the current NOx RACT rule19 (6 NYCRR 227-2.2). However, during certain periods throughout the year it is possible that there will be instances of peak electrical demand which will require that the remaining Existing AGS Units (Units 3, 4 and 5) and the LCEP Equipment to operate simultaneously in order to meet demand loads.

Therefore, the Existing AGS Units (following the shutdown of Unit 2) must be maintained in order to ensure overall grid reliability. In addition, the primary revenues from the AGS Facility are received for having these units available to serve the grid when required. Removal of any additional Existing AGS Units would adversely impact these revenues and render the LCEP uneconomic. As such, the option of shutting down or removing the Existing AGS Units beyond Unit 2 is not viable. It is worth restating that even though the Existing AGS Units 3, 4 and 5 would remain in operation, the LCEP Equipment will result in a facility-wide reduction in emissions while adding an average of 230 MW of efficient generating capacity.

5.6 Shutdown of Existing Sources Comparable to the New Source Capacity

A shutdown of existing sources comparable to the new source capacity is not economically feasible nor does it allow for energy efficient growth of capacity to meet current and future electricity demand. As discussed above, even with the addition of the LCEP Equipment, it is possible that Existing AGS Units 3, 4 and 5 may be called on to operate during peak electrical demand. Thus, it has been determined that only existing AGS Unit 2 (175 MW of existing capacity) can be shutdown without adversely affecting the capacity and reliability of the electric grid.

5.7 No Action Alternative

The no action alternative assumes that the AGS Facility would continue to operate the existing boilers. Under this scenario, the LCEP Equipment would not be installed on the Site; consequently, none of the environmental improvements or emissions reduction strategies associated with the LCEP would occur. Furthermore, the permitted potential air emissions from the Existing AGS Units would

19 Shutdown - “The permanent removal from service of an emission source as evidenced by either a permit condition or provision prohibiting the emission source from further operation, the surrender of the emission source's permit, or the complete deletion of mention of the emission source from the permit of the major facility of which it had formerly been a part with no authorization for operation of the emission source appearing in any other permit.”

not change and could exceed the baseline actual air emissions used in the LCEP offset analysis. This no action alternative would not improve the air quality, would maintain economic conditions, and would not improve energy-generating capability and reliability. In addition, no economic benefits, such as increases in construction and operation employment, and increased tax revenues, would accrue to the area.

6.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

The LCEP will require a relatively minor irreversible and irretrievable commitment of certain human, material, environmental, and financial resources. For the most part, the commitments of these resources will be offset by the significant benefits that will result from implementation of the LCEP.

Irreversible or irretrievable commitments are those that would result in the consumption of a resource that could not easily be restored to original condition. These would generally involve natural resources permanently altered for the construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment, or material resources that are consumed during construction or operation. The results of the various studies performed in support of this DEIS, and as briefly outlined in this section, demonstrate that the LCEP will have minimal irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources, and that the commitment of these resources will result in an overall benefit to the community.

The LCEP will involve the construction of a SiemensCT and ancillary equipment at the existing FOTF and occupy approximately 10.1 acres on this parcel. Currently there are approximately 8 million gallons of fuel stored at the FOTF in four tanks. It can generally be said that there will be no difference in the kind of irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources as a result of the LCEP, as compared to those that have historically occurred.

The LCEP will result in a net decrease of air emissions as compared to the existing AGS Facility, and will not cause or contribute to any exceedence of NAAQS. No air resources would be irreversibly or irretrievably committed due to LCEP activities. In fact, due to the reduction in actual emissions from the AGS baseline, air quality improvements can be expected.

The LCEP Equipment will use dry cooling, and therefore no water withdrawals are anticipated from the Project because no surface water will be required for cooling. In fact, the reduction in operation of the Existing AGS Units as part of the LCEP will result in a decrease in cooling water use at the AGS Facility, a benefit from the Project. In addition, municipal water use will be minimized through the incorporation of captured rain water in the LCEP Equipment design for on-site irrigation and flushing toilets, and other water conserving measures (e.g., metered hands-free faucets, dual flush toilets, and waterless urinals) to the maximum extent practicable.

While the LCEP will require the commitment and irretrievable use of natural gas and ULSD, the new, more efficient SiemensCT will convert more of the fuel energy into electrical energy than the Existing AGS Units, thereby minimizing the irreversible or irretrievable use of fossil fuels. On a generated electricity basis of MW per hour, the LCEP will actually restore the availability some of the fuel resources historically consumed at the AGS Facility as well as other less efficient electric generating facilities.

The LCEP Equipment will be constructed on the site of the existing FOTF, within a historic industrial facility that has been in operation since the 1800s. By locating the project on an existing, developed power generation site, the LCEP Equipment will utilize existing infrastructure to the maximum extent possible, thereby not having a substantial irreversible or irretrievable commitment of land resources with respect to new infrastructure.

Various types of construction materials and building supplies will be committed to the LCEP Equipment. The use of these materials, such as gravel, concrete, steel, etc., will represent a long-term commitment of these resources, which will not be available for other projects. Natural resources will be converted into materials to be used in the construction of the LCEP Equipment and would be physically dedicated to the new equipment. The physical dedication of these resources may be viewed as irretrievably committed, however, depending on the materials; they could be recycled or reused at another location at the time that the LCEP may be decommissioned. In addition, the materials used in the LCEP Equipment may be recycled from other projects.

The Project also represents a commitment of land for the life of the LCEP Equipment. Based on the location and existing use of the property, and that it lies within the property already owned by AGC, there are limited uses that would be applicable for the FOTF. The Site will not be available for alternative purposes for the life of the LCEP Equipment. However, because the generating equipment could be removed, and the land reclaimed for alternative uses at some future date, the commitment of this land to the LCEP Equipment is neither irreversible nor irretrievable. Because of the former use of the property as a fuel oil storage area and because of a Consent Order with the NYSDEC, the reuse would be limited to predominantly commercial or industrial uses.

Human and financial resources have already been expended by AGC, various City and state agencies, and the local community for the planning and review of the LCEP. The expenditure of funds and human resources will continue to be required throughout the permitting and construction phases of the LCEP.

Energy resources also will be irretrievably committed to the LCEP, during both the construction and operation of the Project. Fuel, lubricants, and electricity will be required during the manufacture and transportation of materials and components, during site preparation and turbine installation activities, and for the transportation of workers and materials to the Site. However, the energy resources utilized to construct and operate the Project will be minor compared to the benefits of energy and commerce resulting from the construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment, and made available to the residents and businesses of Queens and the New York metropolitan area.

7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The LCEP will result in an important, positive effect on air quality, and will not have any significant, long- term, adverse impacts on the environment or the Astoria community. Sections 3.1 through 3.14 describe the limited potential impacts that may result from the construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment. After reviewing this DEIS, it is clear that the LCEP will result in a lessening of the environmental burden within the Astoria community. In addition to its positive environmental impact, the LCEP will also help to meet the City’s projected increase in electrical capacity demand by increasing the average capacity of the existing AGS Facility by approximately 230 MW. While doing this, the actual air pollutant emissions from the AGS Facility will be reduced and the air quality impacts from the LCEP Equipment will be insignificant (see Section 3.4).

Local pending developments are considered in conjunction with the LCEP to assess potential cumulative impacts. The only proximate project that is also proposed in the vicinity of the Site is NRG’s Repowering Project, in which NRG proposes to construct and operate two new combined cycle generating units while shutting down its current simple cycle CT array.

The NRG facility is proposed to be located on NRG’s portion of the ConEd Complex south of the Site. The permitting process for the NRG Repowering Project is in its final stages, and an FEIS has been issued for the project. A review of the FEIS shows that it has been determined that NRG’s Astoria Repowering Project will have no significant adverse environmental impacts. In particular, the dispersion modeling of air quality impacts from NRG’s project demonstrated that no exceedances of national or state Ambient Air Quality Standards will result from the operation of that project. As such, since the air quality impacts from the operation of the LCEP Equipment have been determined to be insignificant (see Section 3.4) and the operation of NRG’s Astoria Repowering Project will not cause any exceedance of air quality standards, it can be concluded that there will be no cumulative adverse impact to air quality. In fact, since both projects are proposed to reduce the operation of older, less efficient generating technology, it is anticipated that the cumulative effect of these project will be an improvement in local air quality.

Delivery of oversized materials via barges will be utilized to the maximum extent practicable in order to minimize any potential roadway traffic impacts in the vicinity of the Site. The Site construction activities will also include truck deliveries that will utilize a site entrance along 20th Avenue. Workers will be encouraged to carpool or commute by public transportation during construction activities to further reduce any perceived impact. Even during the peak construction period, it is anticipated that the Site related traffic can be absorbed by the local roadway system. As discussed in Section 3.8, if Site construction schedule overlaps with the construction of the nearby NRG Repowering Project, AGC will coordinate with NRG to secure a local traffic director for both projects. The objective of the local traffic director will be to help with the flow of traffic and reduce potential traffic congestion along 20th Avenue and other roads in the vicinity of the Site. Due to the slight possibility that the construction of both projects will overlap and the ability for the LCEP to bring components to its site via barge, it is not expected that there will be significant interference to traffic in the vicinity of the two facilities.

The Site may include some new, permanent on-site parking spaces to accommodate additional operational staff, vendor maintenance crews and visitors. No additional mitigation measures with respect to traffic and transportation are likely to be implemented for the Site due to the minor and short duration

Page 191 Copyright © ESS Group, Inc., 2011 j:\a532-000 astoria generating uspg\reports_submittals\deis\06-2011 final filing\deis dec_06-2011.doc Draft Environmental Impact Statement June 2011 of any potential congestion that could occur during project operation. The FEIS for the NRG Astoria Repowering Project indicates that there will be no significant adverse impact to traffic resulting from the operation of that project.

AGC is unaware of any other pending substantive developments within the ConEd Complex or adjacent to the Project area that could result in cumulative adverse impacts when considered together with the LCEP.

In summary, the LCEP will result in an important, positive cumulative effect on air quality, and will not have any significant, long-term, adverse impacts on the environment or the Astoria community. Cumulative impacts associated with the neighboring NRG Astoria Repowering Project facility will be negligible and traffic concerns will be mitigated to the extent necessary should construction of both projects coincide. No cumulative impacts associated with other projects are anticipated.

In conclusion, it is clear that there will be no cumulative adverse impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment with respect to other developments in the Astoria community.

8.0 GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS

There are no substantial growth-inducing aspects related to the LCEP. On the contrary, the LCEP is needed to meet the City’s projected increase in electrical capacity demand by increasing the average capacity of the existing AGS Facility by approximately 230 MW. Both the NYISO and PlaNYC project increasing electrical system demand in the future. The construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment will help to fill the recognized projected need. As described in Section 1.0, the LCEP is designed to meet the growth needs of the City’s electric transmission and distribution system as well as provide an efficient quick starting power supply that can be responsive during times of high system demands within the City.

Even without the LCEP, the Astoria area is steadily growing. The industrial growth within this community is a result of the zoning and historical land use patterns, and not the presence or proximity of an additional electric generating facility. At the same time, the population of Astoria is growing at a rate greater than 2% per year. PlaNYC, released by Mayor Bloomberg in 2007, outlines 10 key goals for the City’s sustainable future. PlaNYC estimates a City-wide population increase of 12% by the year 2030. While energy efficiency and conservation measures are being explored and implemented, overall electricity demand in the City is expected to continue growing.

In conclusion, it is clear that the LCEP will not provide the motivation that will induce growth in the area, but that it is needed to meet the current growing demand for an accessible and reliable power supply in Astoria and Northwest Queens in general.

9.0 EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES

The LCEP will have significant, long-term, beneficial effects on the use and conservation of energy resources. The LCEP Equipment will add an average of approximately 230 MW of efficient, quick starting, reliable generating capacity at a critical point within the City’s electricity grid.

9.1 Technological Benefits

The SiemensCT design results in very efficient operation in combined cycle of 60% or greater. This

high efficiency combined with the dry low NOX can annular system results in reduced emissions per unit of energy produced. A new compressor and advanced blade design contribute to the overall efficiency as does the advanced materials that allow higher temperature operation. Air cooling, fast start up and cycling capability result in improved operations, and improved turn down capability results in higher efficiency and lower emissions at partial loads.

9.2 Green Design Benefits

The LCEP Equipment will also implement several “environmentally sensitive design” features that will further conserve energy and other natural resources. Green design considerations for the proposed Project include both green building techniques and renewable/conservation energy strategies. The green designs attributes which are being evaluated, include, but are not limited to, the following items:

Green Building Techniques

1) Green planted spaces around the LCEP Equipment.

2) Incorporating vegetation to mitigate potential visual and/or noise effects.

3) Laying out the LCEP Equipment to minimize bulk.

4) Selecting colors that blend into the area.

Renewable/Conservation Energy Strategies

1) Capturing rain water for reuse on site.

2) Water conserving plumbing fixtures.

3) High efficiency lighting.

4) Review/modification of the conservation efforts in the AGS Facility (i.e., replacing lights to energy efficient fixtures/bulbs).

5) Consideration of using electric/hybrid vehicles on site.

Thus, the LCEP Equipment will enhance the overall energy efficiency of the AGS Facility. Additional details regarding environmentally sensitive design at LCEP Equipment can be found in Section 10.0.

9.3 Cleaner Fuel Usage

The use of cleaner fuels will be implemented to the maximum extent practicable at the LCEP Equipment. As stated in Section 3.4, the LCEP Equipment will utilize natural gas as the primary fuel source with ULSD as a backup fuel. ULSD is a type of diesel fuel that has a maximum sulfur content

of 0.0015%. ULSD generally results in a 99% reduction in SOX emissions and reductions in PM when compared to other available liquid fuels. Moreover, ULSD will be utilized to the maximum extent practicable in all construction equipment.

9.4 Summary

Given that the LCEP will add needed electric generation capacity with fast starting, highly efficient equipment and will implement energy and other natural resource conservation measures through implementation of environmentally sensitive design concepts and cleaner fuels, it is clear that the LCEP will have a positive effect on the use and conservation of energy.

10.0 GREEN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The purpose of this section is to describe the green design considerations that will be incorporated into the LCEP Equipment. The most significant environmental attribute of the LCEP is that the generation technology employed results in reduced air emissions from the AGS Facility. That is, the actual emissions from AGC’s existing facilities in the community will be reduced by an amount greater than the emissions permitted for the new equipment. Concurrent with these facility-wide emission reductions, the LCEP Equipment will add an average of approximately 230 MW of generating capacity into the grid. The SiemensCT proposed for the LCEP is one of the most efficient CT systems currently commercially available. The SiemensCT design results in very efficient operation in combined cycle of 60% or greater.

This high efficiency combined with the dry low NOX can annular system results in reduced emissions per unit of energy produced. A new compressor and advanced blade design contribute to the overall efficiency, as does the advanced materials that allow higher temperature operation. Air cooling, fast start up and cycling capability result in improved operations, and improved turn down capability results in higher efficiency and lower emissions at partial loads. New enforceable permit limitations on the existing equipment will result in the greatest single environmental benefit from the Project. Specific reductions in pollutant emissions and emission reduction strategies are described in Section 3.4.

Beyond this emissions reduction strategy, AGC has committed to implement environmentally sensitive design features into the LCEP Equipment.

10.1 Environmentally Sensitive Design Options

Green design considerations for the Project include both green building techniques and renewable/conservation energy strategies. The LCEP Equipment will implement several “environmentally sensitive design” features that will further conserve energy and other natural resources. To the maximum extent practicable, while maintaining plant safety, efficient operational management and effective plant maintenance, AGC proposes the following environmentally sensitive design attributes be incorporated into the design of the LCEP Equipment.

Green Building Techniques

1) Green planted spaces around the LCEP Equipment.

2) Incorporating vegetation to mitigate potential visual and/or noise effects.

3) Laying out the LCEP Equipment to minimize bulk.

4) Selecting colors that blend into the area.

Renewable/Conservation Energy Strategies

1) Capturing rain water for reuse on site.

2) Water conserving plumbing fixtures.

3) High efficiency lighting.

4) Review/modification of the conservation efforts in the AGS Facility (i.e., replacing lights to energy efficient fixtures/bulbs).

5) Consideration of using electric/hybrid vehicles on site.

In summary, by design the LCEP Equipment is an environmental improvement project that incorporates environmental sensitive design attributes aesthetic enhancements, renewable energy technologies, and resource conservation components and techniques. Specifically, the LCEP will add an average of approximately 230 MW of highly efficient, fast starting electric generation capacity to the Astoria area and Northwest Queens. Furthermore, AGC will incorporate an array of additional environmentally sensitive features into the design, construction and operation of the LCEP Equipment.

11.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Definition AGC Astoria Generating Company, L.P., a US Power Generating Company The Astoria Generating Station, consisting of Units 2, 3, 4, 5 and GT-1, AGS or AGS Facility associated ancillary/auxiliary equipment and associated property, including the A-0 dock, Fuel Oil Tank Farm, and the existing A-10 dock Article X Article X of the Public Service Law BQE Brooklyn Queens Expressway CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring System CEQR City Environmental Quality Review City New York City CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide ConEd Consolidated Edison Approximately 318 acres north of 20th Avenue in Astoria, New York that has been the location of energy production activities since 1899 and is currently ConEd Complex occupied by three electric generating facilities, two ConEd switchyards, and ConEd’s Transmission and Distribution Service Center CT Combustion Turbine dB Decibel dB(A) A-weighted Decibel DCP Department of City Planning (New York City) DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DEP Department of Environmental Protection (New York City) DOT Department of Transportation (New York City) EIS Environmental Impact Statement FAA Federal Aviation Administration FDNY City Fire Department (New York) FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FOTF Fuel Oil Tank Farm GEP Good Engineering Practice GT Gas Turbine

H2SO4 Sulfuric Acid HHV High Heating Value of Fuel HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator LCEP The Luyster Creek Energy Project at the Astoria Generating Station

Abbreviation Definition The Siemens H-class combustion turbine, heat recovery steam generator, LCEP Equipment steam turbine, transformers, air cooled condenser, storage tanks, compressors and utility connections, and other associated ancillary/auxiliary equipment

Ldn Day-Night Average Sound Level LEPC Local Emergency Planning Committee

Leq Equivalent Sound Level

Leq(1-hr) Hourly Equivalent Sound Level MMBtu Million British Thermal Units MTA Metropolitan Transit Authority MW Megawatt NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOX Nitrogen Oxides NRG NRG Energy, Inc. NRHP National Register of Historical Places NSPS New Source Performance Standards NSR New Source Review NYC New York City NYCRR New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations NYISO New York Independent System Operator NYPA New York Port Authority NYPD New York Police Department, City of NYS New York State NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSGIS New York State Geographic Information System NYSOPRHP New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation NYSPSC New York State Public Service Commission

O3 Ozone OS/OW Oversize/Overweight Pb Lead PEJA Potential Environmental Justice Area Plan developed by Mayor Bloomberg which outlines 10 key goals for the City’s PlaNYC sustainable future PM Particulate Matter

PM10 Particulate Matter with an Aerodynamic Diameter of 10 Microns or Less

PM2.5 Particulate Matter with an Aerodynamic Diameter of 2.5 Microns or Less

Abbreviation Definition ppm Parts per Million ppmvd Parts per Million, Volumetric Dry PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration PSL Public Service Law RCNY Rules of the City of New York S/NRHP State and National Register of Historical Places SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction SEMO State Emergency Management Office (New York) SEQRA State Environmental Quality Review Act (New York) Combined Cycle power block consisting of the Siemens H-class combustion SiemensCT turbine, heat recovery steam generator and steam turbine SILs Significant Impact Levels

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SPCC Plan Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System SPHINX State Preservation Historical Information Network Exchange ST Steam Turbine U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ULSD Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel USCG United States Coast Guard USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey VOC Volatile Organic Compound WPCP Water Pollution Control Plant WRP Waterfront Revitalization Program