Jn State Environmental Quality Review OS^C

j.n State Environmental Quality Review OS^C'V^0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION ounV 20 W'^"^ Notice of Determination of Non-Significance ?^ ^' (n^^s-F-^-^S

Project Number: Date: November 14, 2002 CAWM.T®'

This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. ^^ *- Sf'^L^oiK^

The Long Island Power Authority, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant environmental impact and a Draft Impact Statement will not be prepared.

Name of Action: J^iiiii!aTc'aSBl^!Kn'e'na^e'ente[*iaFQigct^f

SEQR Status: Type 1 x Unlisted Type II emergency action *

Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes x No

Description of Action:

The Long Island Power Authority (LIRA) is considering entering into a power purchase agreement with Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC to purchase output from the proposed electrical generating facility to be constructed in Far Rockaway, Queens. The proposed facility, to be called the Jamaica Bay Energy Center, would consist of one simple-cycle duel-fueled 54-megawatt Pratt & Whitney FT-8 Swift-Pac comprising two combustion turbines with a single generator.

Location:

The facility would be located at Sunnyside and Bay 28th Streets in the Far Rockaway portion of Queens, on a parcel of land currently owned by LIRA and leased to Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC, which would sub-lease approximately two acres of property to Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC for the proposed facility. Approximately three acres of additional land would be leased from KeySpan for temporary use during construction as a staging and laydown area.

1129072.3 Reasons Supporting This Determination:

A comprehensive Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed, and a determination of significance was issued by the LIRA Board of Trustees on November 14, 2002. The EA analyzed potential environmental impacts of the project related to land use, zoning, neighborhood character, community facilities, historic resources, archaeological resources, visual resources, socioeconomic/environmental justice, traffic and transportation, air quality, noise, infrastructure, hazardous materials, natural resources, coastal zone management, construction and cumulative impacts and found that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project in any of such areas. Based upon the EA, LIRA has determined that the proposed project would not have any significant adverse impact on the environment and, accordingly, that an environmental impact statement is not required for the proposed project. A full statement of the reasons supporting LIRA'S determination that no significant adverse environmental impacts would result from the proposed project is set forth in the EA and is summarized in Section 2.0 of the Executive Summary of the EA (copy attached hereto).

For Further Information:

Contact Rerson: Edward J. Grilli Address: 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 403 Uniondale.NY 11553 Telephone Number: (516) 719-9877 E-mail: [email protected]

129072.3 PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION ^^k Prepared by Project Sponsor ^^k ..- i NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Pans 2 and 3.

It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or nvestigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance.

NAME OF ACTION Jamaica Bay Energy Center LOCATION OF ACTION (INCLUDE STREET ADDRESS, MUNICIPALITY AND COUNTY) 14-25 Bay l^"1 Street; Far Rockaway, New York 11691 Queens County NAME OF APPUCANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC/ S. Peter Ford (610) 361-1960 ADDRESS 700 Universe Blvd. ClTY/PO STATE ZIP CODE Juno Beach FL 33408 NAME OF OWNER (IF DIFFERENT) BUSINESS TEIJ^PHONE Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility (610) 361-1960 ADDRESS 700 Universe Blvd. CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE Juno Beach FL 33408 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION

The proposed action is the installation and operation by Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC (hereafter, Jamaica Bay Energy Center) of one simple cycle dual-fuel fired electric generating facility on property to be leased by the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA). The facility will consist of one nominal 54 M W Pratt & Whitney FT-8 Swift-Pac comprising two gas turbines each with a nominal capacity of 27 MW. Jamaica Bay Energy Center will produce electricity for the New York City grid in the portion of Queens served by the LIPA. LIPA would enter into a power purchase agreement with Jamaica Bay to purchase the output of the facility.

The Jamaica Bay Energy Center will be constructed adjacent to two existing facilities, the Bayswater Peaking Facility and the KeySpan Far Rockaway Generating Facility, on a parcel of property leased from LIPA by Bayswater. The proposed facility will meet zoning requirements. Bayswater will sub-lease approximately 2 acres of property for the Jamaica Bay facility.

The proposed turbine generating unit is designed with dual fuel capability and will utilize low sulfur (0.05%) No. 2 distillate oil for primary fuel, and natural gas as a backup fuel. Distillate fuel will be received by either truck or barge, and stored in a single 300,000 gallon tank with a 110% secondary containment protection steel shell and impervious bottom. Barge unloading will be along the newly refurbished bulkhead, on the north side of the site. The oil receiving equipment will include moorings, receiving boom, spill response equipment, and fire protection equipment in accordance with applicable codes. It is estimated that one barge delivery per week will be required. Distillate received by truck will enter from Bay 24u, Street, and proceed to a truck unloading containment area that will be designed and constructed for the facility. The truck unloading facility will have the capability to unload two trucks simultaneously. All oil receiving areas will be equipped with oil-water containment and separators. A foam fire protection system will be installed.

Natural gas for backup fuel will be connected to the existing Bayswater natural gas system. The Jamaica Bay Facility will utilize the Bayswater gas compressor; however, a separate meter will be installed to monitor gas flow to Jamaica Bay. Water and sewer connections will be installed from the existing Bayswater facility infrastructure and will have independent meters. Site stormwater will be directed into a stormwater retention basis and then, if needed, into an existing New York City stormwater line. There will be no direct discharges into Mott Basin from the Jamaica Bay facility.

Jamaica Bay will incorporate a continuous emissions monitoring system(CEMS), a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system and an oxidation catalyst to achieve low NOx, CO and VOC emission rates. The facility would be a minor source.

Vlease Cumplele Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable

2 61720 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmcasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action.

Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts:

Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.

Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.

Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important.

DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions

Part2 Pan Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: | x| Parti [ x| [^} ^

Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that:

[~x\ A. ^he ProJect wi" not result in any large and important impact(s) and. therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.

I I g Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this ' ' Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* Q_ The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the D environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions

Nameof Aaion

Jamaica Bay Energy Center

Name of Lead Agency

Long Island Power Authority Edward Grilli Chief of Staff Print or Type Name of Respoijsi^le Officer in Lead Agency /'T11'6 0^ RejpOIisiJjle Officer

Signature ^Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signatu^Jof Preparer (If different from responsible officer)

November 14, 2002 Date A. SITE DESCRIPTION ^^ ^^ Physical selling of overaJI project, both develHBid undeveloped areas. VV I. Present Land Use: Q Urban [Tj Industrial Q Commercial Q] Residential(suburban) []] Rural (non-farm) | | Forest Q Agriculture [7] Other Utility (2-acre project site) 2. Total acreage of project area: _2:0 acres. PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION APPROXIMATE ACREAGE J^Q acres 20 acres Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Q acres 0 acres Forested Q acres 0 acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Q acres 0 acres Wetland(Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) "Q acres 0 acres Water Surface Area "Q ' acres 0 acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) ~20 acres 1.5 acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces "Q acres 0.5 acres Other (Indicate type) ~Q acres 0 acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? a. Soil drainage: [£] Well drained % of site [~~| Moderately well drained 100 % of site. I I Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? N/A Acres (see 1NYCRR 370).

4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? I 1 YES I—I No a. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet) —' - 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: Fx ] 0-10% IQQ %\ I 10-15% | [ 15% or greater %

6. Isprojectsubstantiallycontiguousto, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National I I YFS ITl No Registers of Historic Places? ' ' L=-l 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? I I YES Hn No

8. What is the depth of the water table? _S (in feet) 9. Issitelocatedoveraprimary, principal, or sole source aquifer? I 1 YRS nTl NO

10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? I 1 YES fxl NO

11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? r~~| YES (Yl No

According to: David Stilwell, US Fish and Wildlife Service, October 2002; Diane Rusanowskv. National Marine Fisheries Service. October 2002; see Chapter 12 Identify each species: N/A 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? ["1 YES M No

Describe: N/A

- 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? F 1 YES fx] No

If yes, explain:

14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? j 1 YES ("xl No The proposed Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility is located on an industrial site that has been used for power generation for nearly 50 years 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: The project is located near to Motts Basin, which flows into Jamaica Bay. There are no bodies of water within the proiect site. a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is Mott Basin is a tributary to .Tamaica Bay. tributary ~ —— . , 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a Name: Tl^kre no freshwater or tidal wetlands within the projecttdAh( le closest tidal wetlands are found a 110 the V V project site, and located approximately 300 f between the bulkhead and Motts Ba^^ b. Size (in acres): N/A _^ 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? m YES • No a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? m YES • No

b. If YES. will improvements be necessary to allow connection? YES NO Water, sewer and stormwater connections will be made to existing on-site infrastructure but metered separately from the Bayswater Facility. 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, • YES [7] No Section 303 and 304? 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 • YES m NO of the ECL. and 6 NYCRR 617?

20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? (Coal Fly Ash) m YES • NO B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate). a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 2 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 2 acres initially; 2 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A % f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 4 ; proposed 4 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 2 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially N/A Ultimately N/A ~~ I. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 40 height; 30 width; 125 length. Exhaust Slack appurtenance to the generating facility will be approximately 110 feet tall and IS feet wide J. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 0 ft 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 2,000 cubic yards tons/cubic yards. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? I I N/A Q YES HTl NO a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? N/A b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? | | YES Q NO c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? | | YES [^J NO 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? <0.5 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? • YES nn NO

6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 5 to 6 months, (including demolition) 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated N/A (number) b. Anticipated date of commencement phase I N/A month N/A year, (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date of final phase N/A month N/A year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? | | YES Q NO 8. Will blasting occur during construction • YES |T] No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction ; after project is 75 to 100 complete 10. Number ol jobs eliminated by this project 0 I. Will project require relocation of any pi or facilities? • YES d] NO If yes, explain: N/A

12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? [Tl YES • No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc) and amount Very small quantities to sanitary sewer system, and limited quanitities of process industrial wastewater to be stored in tank for offsite treatment b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged N/A 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Type N/A • YES [T\ NO 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? • YES [7] NO If yes, explain; N/A 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? • YES [T] NO 16. Will the project generate solid waste? [Tl YES • NO a. If yes, what is the amount per month negligible tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? || ] YES Q No c. If yes. give name Licensed carriers will be used location NYSDEC licensed facility d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? I I YES [T] NO e. If yes. explain: N/A 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? I | YES [T| No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? N/A tons/month, b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? N/A years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? I | YES [7] NO 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? [j "] YES | x | No

20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? jj ] YES I x j No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? I \ I YES j 1 NO If yes. indicate type(s) The proposed Jamaica Bay Energy Center will use either distillate fuel oil or natural gas to produce electrical enerev for the UPA served portion of Queens. 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 67.200 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? I I YES \T] NO If yes, explain: N/A

25. Approvals Required (see Chapter 1): TYPE SUBMITTAL DATE City, Town, Village Board i | YES X | No City, Town, Village Planning Board 1 YES x No City, Town Zoning Board YES x I No City. County Health Department YES X No Other Local Agencies NYCDEP Air Permit Oct. 2002 YES No Other Regional Agencies YES X No State Agencies NYSDEC Air Permits Oct. 2002 SPDES Oct. 2002 NYSDEC Tank Permits Jan.2002 YES No NYSPSC CPCN Oct. 2002 Federal Agencies FAA Stack Height Oct. 2002 US Coast Guard Operations - X Manual & Facility Response Plan Jan.2003 YES No FERC EWG & Market Rates Dec. 2002 C. Zoning and Planning Information

1 Does proposed aclion involve a p^^Pig or zoning decision? ^^^ [ 1 YES I x I No If Yes, indicate decision required: I | Zoning amendment Q Zoning variance QJ New/revision of master plan []] Subdivision [j Site plan | | Special use permit P"] Resource management plan ["] Other 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? M3-1: Manufacturing

3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?

Project would not exceed local zoning densities.

4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? No zoning changes are proposed.

5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?

No zoning changes are proposed. 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? I x I YES I I No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '/i mile radius of proposed action? The site is surrounded by M3-1 (manufacturing) and R2 (west and southVRS (east) (residential) located outside the M3-1 area. 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a Yi mile? | X | YES | | No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/A 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? [ [ YES | x | No

11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire I v I YES I I No protection? | A | | ]

a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? | X | YES | | No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? | | YES | \ | No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic. | | YES | | No D. Informational Details

Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification

I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.

Applicant/Sponsor Name Louis Coaklev ; Date October 16.2002

Signature 0^L^LyryTa^*. C^Jwir^)( ^-oCTJLU v^ : Title Senior Environmental Specialist

If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. PART 2—PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE « Responsibility of Lead Agency

jld be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site, other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and hav( been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer eacf question. • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumulative effects.

1 2 3 IMPACT ON LAND Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Impact Impacts Project Change DNO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of • • • Yes • No length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than D • Q Yes • No 3 feet. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. • • D Yes D No Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within • • D Yes Q No 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than • • • Yes D No one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 • D • Yes • No tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. a • • Yes Q No Construction of a designated floodway. a • • Yes • No Other impacts Construction of an electric generating facility on • • • Yes • No previously vacant land at an industrial site. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) MNO O YES • Specific land forms: a • • Yes • No 1 2 3 IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potential Can Impact Be 3. Will the proposed action afj^kany water body designated as protectedi ^Moderate Large Mitigated By (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 ol^BEnvironmental Conservation Law, ECL) I Blmpact Impacts ProiectChanqe •NO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Developable area of site contains a protected water body. • • • Yes • No Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a • D • Yes nNo protected steam. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. • • • Yes • No Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. • D • Yes • No Other impacts: D D • Yes nNo

4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? HNO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or D • • Yes • No more than a 10-acre increase or decease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. • • • Yes • No • Other impacts. • • • Yes nNo

5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? DNO • YES .Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. SPDES • • • Yes B No Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not D • • Yes DNo have approval to serve proposed (project) action. Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 • • • Yes QNo gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water D • • Yes • No supply system. Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. • • • Yes • No Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not • • • Yes • No exist or have inadequate capacity. Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. • D • Yes • No Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharges into an existing • • • Yes • No body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical • • • Yes • No products greater than 1,100 gallons. Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water • • . • Yes QNo and/or sewer services. Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may • • • Yes nNo require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. NYC DEP can supply the water without impact. • • • Yes n No Chemical and petroleum storage would be in Other impacts: accordance with NYS DEC permit.

6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? HNO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. • D • Yes • No 1 2 3 SmaMo Potential Can Impact Be MOCHK Large Mitigated By Impacts Project Change • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. D • • Yes Q No • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. D • • Yes • No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. • • • Yes • No • Other impacts: D • • Yes • No

IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? • NO YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour • • • Yes • No • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of • D • Yes • No refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a • • • Yes • No heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to • • • Yes • No industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial • D • Yes • No development within existing industrial areas. Detailed modeling analyses found emissions D • • Yes • No • Other impacts: below EPA significant impact levels.

IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? BNO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal • • • Yes • No list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Removal or any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. • D • Yes • No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other • • • Yes • No than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: • • • Yes • No

9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? BNO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory D • • Yes • No fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal or more than 10 acres D • • Yes n No of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? • NO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural • • • Yes • No land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By i Impact Impacts Project Change Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural • • Yes • No land. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres • • • Yes • No of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land • • • Yes Q management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g., cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff). Other impacts: • • • Yes • No

IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? • NO • YES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from • • • Yes D No or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of • • • Yes • No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening D • • Yes • No of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts: A detailed visual resources analysis found no • D • Yes • No significant impacts

IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontotogical importance? • NO D YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially • D • Yes • No contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of Historic Places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the • • • Yes • No project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for • • • Yes • No archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: • • • Yes • No

IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? • NO D YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. D • • Yes • No • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. D- • • Yes • No • Other impacts: • • • Yes • No 1 2 3 SmaJ^i Potential Can Impact Be ModflB Large Mitigated By ImpUr Impacts • Project Change IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)? • NO • YES List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. Jamaica Bay is a Significant Fish and Coastal Wildlife Habitat and a CEA. The proposed project is separated by about 350 feet from these areas, and these areas would not be affected by the proposed project.

Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? D • Q Yes • No • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource? • • • Yes • No • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource? • • D Yes • No • Proposed action will impact the use, functionorenjoymentof the resource? • • D Yes • No • Other impacts: • • • Yes • No

IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15- will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? • NO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. • • • Yes • No • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. D • D Yes • No • Other impacts. • • • Yes • No

IMPACT ON ENERGY 16' Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? D NO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any • • • Yes • No form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy • D Yes • No transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family • residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: The proposed project would add needed • D • Yes • No electricity to the LIPA power grid in Queens.

10 ^^^•^^^ m ^m NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be 17. Will there be objectionab^^dors, noise, or vibration as a result Moderate Large Mitigated By of the Proposed Action?^^ • NO • YEsI Bnpact Impacts Project Change ^F • "i Examples that would apply to column 2 j. • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. • • • Yes D No • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). • • D Yes • No • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local D • • Yes • No ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a • • • Yes • No noise screen. • Other impacts: D • • Yes • No

IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18- Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? • NO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous • • • Yes • No substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may a be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any • • D Yes • No form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied natural gas or D D Yes • No other flammable liquids. • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within D • • Yes • No 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. • Other impacts. Detailed modeling of a ammonia spill found • D D Yes • No no potential for significant impact. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19- Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? • NO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is • • D Yes • No located is likely to grow by more than 5%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services • • D Yes • No will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. • D • Yes • No • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. • • D Yes • No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures • • • Yes • No or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services • • D Yes • No (e.g., schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. • a • Yes • No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. • a • Yes • No • Other impacts: D D D Yes D No

20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential; adverse en\/ironmenta impacts? • No • Yes if any action in Part 2 is identified as a potential large impact or if you cannot determine the magnitud e of Impact, proceed to Part 3.

11 Jamaica Bay Mm •Butive Summary

2.0 Potential Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Actions 2.1 Land Use, Zoning, and Neighborhood Character

The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility site encompasses an area of approximately two acres, located within the fenced-in area owned by KeySpan and LIPA, and contains the Bayswater Peaking Facility and KeySpan Generating Facility. Both the Bayswater Peaking Facility and KeySpan Generating Facility are currently in operation and are part of a parcel of land that has been in continuous use for power production since at least 1953. The Jamaica Bay Facility project site area is currently an unvegetated vacant portion of the Bayswater site. Adjacent properties to the west and south are screened from the proposed site by the 100- to 130-foot vegetated buffer along Sunnyside Place and Bay 24th Street. Residential areas within the half-mile study area mainly consist of single-family homes. The institutional land uses within this study area consist of P.S. 104 District 27 Bayswater School and Westboume Playground, Bayswater Point State Park, Inwood Park (Nassau County), and Nassau County Department of Public Works, which has a local garage located across Motts Basin directly opposite the existing facility. Gateway National Recreation Area is located west of the proposed facility. There are three commercial properties within one-half mile of the site: the Inwood Country Club, a Brooklyn Union Gas facility and tank farm for home heating oil. Because of the existing power generating uses adjacent to the proposed project site and the site historically has been used in conjunction with energy production, land use conditions would not change significantly as a result of the operation of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. Siting the facility immediately adjacent to existing power facilities provides the project the ability to utilize the existing infrastructure attendant to these facilities, thereby minimizing the acreage of land required to be disturbed and associated impacts. Additionally, the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would be located entirely within the existing fenced site. There would be no impacts to the 100-foot vegetated buffer between residences, the project site, and Bayswater and KeySpan facilities along Sunnyside Place or Bay 24th Street, although a limited number of trees may be removed on the project site adjacent to the buffer area. As such, no significant impacts to the existing land uses present within the project area are anticipated as a result of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. The project site is located within an area zoned as M3-1, designated for manufacturing use, which allows power-generating facilities. The proposed facility is consistent with the existing zoning and land use. Therefore, the proposed facility would not have a significant adverse impact with regard to zoning. 2.2 Community Facilities An inventory of community facilities (schools, hospitals, religious facilities, etc.) has been taken within a half-mile radius of the project site to assess the potential impacts, if any, of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility on these facilities. Community facilities in this

ES-8 Jamaica Bay ^^ ^^Executive Summary study area included P.S. 104 District 27 Bayswater School and Westboume Playground, Bayswater Point State Park, and Inwood Park. Other local institutional land uses included the Far Rockaway Post Office and the Nassau County Department of Public Works, which has a local garage located across Motts Basin directly opposite the existing facility. The proposed facility would not result in the placement of additional students in local schools or impact local recreational facilities to serve their community. Moreover, the proposed facility would not have any significant adverse air quality, noise, or visual impacts on any community facilities. Consequently, the proposed facility would not result in any significant adverse impacts on any community facilities. 2.3 Historic Resources

As part of the previously constructed Bayswater facility, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) had issued a letter of No Significant Impact for cultural or historic resources that included the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility site. In October 2002, OPRHP was contacted and requested to update its letter of determination and identify any known historic resources on the proposed facility site, defined as the 2-acre area of construction and 3-acre temporary laydown area. OPRHP subsequently reviewed the historic resource files and determined that the project would have no effect on federal, state, or local listed historic structures on site or in the vicinity of the project area. The New York City Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) was also contacted regarding a landmark review requested for this area. A preliminary review was conducted on the LPC website and no landmarks were identified within the vicinity of the project site. Based upon the LPC review of the Bayswater site, LPC is expected to concur that the proposed Jamaica Bay site would not have any significant impacts on any historic resources. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts on any historic resources would be expected with the proposed facility. 2.4 Archaeological Resources Reviews of historic aerial photographs and Sanbom maps have indicated that the proposed facility site and project area are within an area that has been continuously developed and has undergone extensive disturbance for the past 100 years. Additionally, a preliminary search was conducted on the LPC web site and no landmarks were identified. Therefore, with regard to archaeological resources, no significant adverse impacts are expected with the proposed facility. 2.5 Visual Resources The site location for the proposed project was selected in order to preserve the existing 100-foot vegetated setback buffer along Sunnyside Street and Bay 28th Street, which would act as a screen for the residences located across Mott Avenue as well as for Westboume Playground (at Mott Avenue and Bay 25th Street). A limited number of trees that encroach into the project site area would be removed but vegetation within the 100- foot setback area would remain. FPL proposes to enhance the visual buffer in this area with additional tree plantings, landscaping, and other screening measures.

ES-9 Jamaica Bay mM I^Eitive Summary

The most visible portion of the proposed facility would be the 110-foot emission stack. In comparison, the KeySpan facility, which has been part of the viewscape for nearly 50 years, contains a 266-foot stack. The newly constructed Bayswater facility's 110-foot stack would be comparable to the stack height of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would also include a 40-foot high oil tank, which would be screened by the 100-foot vegetated setback buffer to the south and west and by Bayswater to the north. The line of vision to the project site and proposed facility (2-acre footprint) from the surrounding sensitive receptors is either obscured or dominated by the existing and larger (3-acre footprint) KeySpan facility and the comparable Bayswater facility. The existing KeySpan facility would partially screen the views of the proposed project area from the residential and commercial properties to the east. Residential properties to the west would also not be significantly impacted as shown by the photo simulation of the project area including the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility and the planned inclusion of additional landscaping and tree plantings. The stack would also be painted in a neutral gray color, similar to the Bayswater facility, thereby minimizing potential impacts. Because of the already dominant view of the larger KeySpan facility and its associated transmission towers, the view of the proposed facility is not considered a significant visual impact. Additionally, the existing 100-foot buffer, and other dominant structures would screen most views of the proposed facility. The proposed facility would be a distant visual element to views from Gateway National Recreation Area and Rockaway Community Park, and other structures and vegetation would screen most views. The proposed facility would ultimately be incorporated into the existing industrial landscape imposed by the more dominant view of the KeySpan facility, and would not result in a significant adverse impact on existing viewsheds in the project area. 2.6 Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice While there is currently no requirement to include an environmental justice analysis as part of SEQR, an environmental justice analysis has been provided for informational purposes. The focus of an environmental justice analysis is the determination of whether the construction and operation of a proposed facility would have both adverse and disproportional impacts on an environmental justice community. The socioeconomic characteristics of the neighborhoods on either side of the project site differ considerably. Those to the east of the project site have median household incomes that meet the definition of a low-income community, while those on the west and north sides do not meet the definition of a low-income community. Both of the communities east and west of the facility meet the definition of a minority community, but the percent minority population in the neighborhoods to the east of the property is much higher than in the neighborhoods to the west. Overall, the area within the half-mile study area of the proposed Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility does not meet the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) definition of a low-income area. The median household income is roughly

ES-10 Jamaica Bay ^^ ^^Executive Summary equal to Queens County. The half-mile study area meets NYSDEC's definition of a minority community. Once the presence of a low-income or minority community has been documented, NYSDEC guidance on environmental justice defines two steps to determine if potential environmental impacts are likely to adversely affect communities of concern. The steps are to identify potential environmental impacts and to determine whether impacts are likely to adversely affect a minority or low-income community. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility is not expected to have any significant adverse impacts on the surrounding community. Air quality analysis results show that the emissions from the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would result in pollutant concentrations that would be well below applicable air quality standards. A cumulative air quality analysis found that the emissions from the existing KeySpan, Bayswater, and other nearby generating facilities together with the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would not exceed applicable air quality standards. Therefore, although a potential low-income and minority community of concern was identified within the vicinity of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility, evaluation of the proposed project has not identified any significant adverse impacts on a short term or cumulative basis to low-income or minority populations. In accordance with the environmental justice objectives defined by NYSDEC, there would be no disproportionate impact on minority population near the proposed facility. 2.7 Traffic and Transportation The proposed facility would not adversely impact existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would generate a small number of vehicle trips. Maintenance and operations for the proposed facility would be managed by two workers, who would not be present at the facility at all times. During normal operation, the proposed facility would generate a maximum of two vehicle trips per hour. Periodically during maintenance, there may be as many as eight vehicle trips per hour. The very small number of trips generated by the proposed facility, even when staffed, would not significantly increase traffic on local roadways. Therefore, the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would not have the potential to impact vehicle traffic. One barge trip per week to supply fuel oil would not have a significant adverse impact on the maritime traffic in and around Jamaica Bay. 2.8 Air Quality a. Introduction The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would have a net output of approximately 54 MW to the electric grid. Operating limits would be implemented so that annual emissions of all air pollutants would not exceed "major stationary source" thresholds as defined in 40 CFR 52.21 and 6 NYCRR Parts 201 and 231. The facility would be permitted as a minor source and,' for NSR purposes, is considered as a minor modification to the existing Bayswater Peaking Facility. As such, the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration

ES-11 Jamaica Bay B^Mtive Summary

(PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review (NNSR) rules would not apply to the proposed facility. b. Facility Design

The facility would consist of a simple cycle Pratt & Whitney Model FT8 Swift Pac (i.e., two combustion turbines) that would bum primarily low sulfur (0.05 percent) distillate fuel oil or natural gas. Water injection and SCR would be used to control nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions to 6.0 parts per million (ppm) when firing fuel oil, and 2.5 ppm when firing natural gas. Carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions would be minimized through the use of good combustion practices and would be further reduced through the use of an oxidization catalyst. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM) and particulate matter having a diameter less than 10 microns (PM10) would be minimized through the use of natural gas and low sulfur distillate fuel. c. Facility Emissions

Projected annual emissions for the project are summarized in Table ES-1 and compared with the major source thresholds—PSD and NNSR. The state facility air permit application submitted to NYSDEC requests operating limits which would limit facility emissions to the values shown in this table and consequently keep the facility's air emissions below major source thresholds. Maximum fuel consumption is estimated to be approximately 13,800,000 gallons per year combusting distillate oil exclusively and 4,744 million cubic feet per year combusting natural gas exclusively (based on average ambient temperature of 590F). d. Pollutant Concentrations The air quality impacts due to emissions of criteria pollutants (i.e., those pollutants of concern which include, PM10, SO2, NO2, and CO) were assessed using state-of-the-art air dispersion simulation models. The dispersion modeling for the Jamaica Bay Facility was performed consistent with the procedures found in U.S. EPA documents and NYSDEC requirements. It utilized the U.S. EPA Industrial Source Complex-Short Term (ISCST3) Version 02035 model with rural dispersion parameters, 5 years of meteorological data (from JFK Airport, Queens, NY with upper air sounding data from Brookhaven National Labs, Upton, NY), and a polar grid of receptors going out to 3 kilometers with additional sensitive receptors. To obtain total concentrations for comparison to Ambient Air Quality Standards, the highest representative measured background values obtained using 3 years of recent data from nearby NYSDEC monitoring stations was combined with the highest or second highest model predicted value. The maximum predicted concentrations from the proposed facility (alone) are shown in Table ES-2.

Table ES-1: Major Source Thresholds and Project Potential Emission Rates Pollutant'3' Major Source Thresholds Annual Facility

ES-12 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary

,c PSD NNSR Emissions (TPY) ' (TPY*) (TPY) (b) Carbon Monoxide 250 N/A 43.8 Sulfur Dioxide 250 N/A 69.6 PM 250 N/A 107.0 PM10 250 N/A 107.0 Nitrogen Oxides 250 25 22.5 VOC 250 25 18.8 Sulfuric Acid Mist 250 N/A 21.3 Notes: * TPY = tons per year "' Regulated substances not emitted by the proposed project have not been Included in the table. (b)U.S. EPA has recently redesignated Queens County as attainment for CO, therefore, the PSD threshold of 250 tpy would apply. ic) NOx emissions based on an annual operating to maintain minor source status. Emissions of remaining pollutants conservatively assume that NOx emissions are controlled below the SCR vendor guarantee of 6.0 ppm when burning oil, which could result in increased operating hours. Source: 6 NYCRR 231-2 and 40 CFR 52.21 (b) (23) (i)

Table ES-2: Maximum Pollutant Concentrations

Maximum Modeled Significant Concentration Impact PSD Class Due to Facility Averaging Level II Increment Alone NAAQS Pollutant Period (ug/m3) (ug/ms) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)

8-hour 500 3.0 10,000 3-hour 25 512 12.3 1,300

S02 24-hour 5 91 2.5 365 Annual 1 20 0.009 80 24-hour 5 30 4.95 150 PM,o Annual 1 17 0.014 50 NO2 Annual 1 25 0.002 100

Maximum predicted concentrations from the proposed facility plus the adjacent Bayswater Facility (with SCR) were combined with highest representative measured background levels for comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Table ES-3 presents the results. This modeling analysis determined that the facility's emissions would not result in air quality concentrations that exceed the recognized SILs. Emissions from the proposed facility would not result in significant air quality concentrations. Additionally, the maximum total concentrations resulting from emissions from the proposed facility plus the Bayswater Peaking Facility added to the highest representative background concentrations are below applicable NAAQS. Table ES-3: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts

ES-13 Jamaica Bay utive Summary

Maximum Modeled Concentration From Proposed Facility and Bayswater Background Maximum Total Averaging Facility Concentration Concentration NAAQS 3 5 3 Pollutant Period (ug/mf) (ug/m ) (ug/m ) (ug/m ) 1-hour 31.8 7,192 7,223.8 40,000 CO 8-hour 12.2 5,220 5,232.2 10,000 3-hour 7.4 173 180.4 1,300

S02 24-hour 1.4 76.8 78.2 365 Annual 0.009 21 21.01 80 24-hour 3.2 48 51.2 150 PM.o Annual 0.040 23 23.04 50

N02 Annual 0.02 52.6 52.63 100

Consequently, the proposed facility would not have a significant air quality impact or exceed the applicable NAAQS. e. Accidental Ammonia Release Aqueous ammonia would be used as the reducing agent in the project's SCR system for controlling NOx emissions from the turbines. The NOx reduction achieved by the SCR system is affected by the ratio of ammonia (NH3) to NOx. Because of the need for a constant supply, aqueous ammonia (a mixture containing approximately 19 percent by weight ammonia in water) would be stored on-site in an 12,000 gallon steel storage tank approximately 315 feet from the nearest offsite public receptor. Due to the dilute concentration of the aqueous ammonia (less than 20 percent), the project's ammonia solution is not subject to the U.S. EPA's Risk Management Program for regulated toxic and flammable substances (40 CFR Part 68). However, to ensure the health and safety of the community surrounding the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility, the potential for off-site impacts resulting from a worst-case ammonia release scenario (e.g., rupture of the tank wall) using the protocols established in U.S. EPA's Risk Management Program regulations (40 CFR Part 68) was assessed. To predict the potential worst-case impact distance, the HGSYSTEM model was used. Based upon this model predicted concentrations of ammonia at the closest offsite public receptor distance of approximately 315 feet is less than 100 ppm. This value is well below the American Industrial Hygiene Association Emergency Response Guidelines Level 2 (EPRG-2) 150 ppm short-term exposure value. This 150 ppm value represents the maximum airborne concentration below which nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to an hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects. Therefore, the defined worst-case accidental release scenario would not result in any adverse health effects due to ammonia beyond the property boundary, and even with this conservative approach, no significant impacts would occur.

ES-14 Jamaica Bay ^^ ^^ Executive Summary f. PM2.5 Impact

An assessment was made of the potential effects of fine particulates (PlVb.s) on public health and welfare. The term PM2.5 refers to the particle size range equivalent to 2.5 micrometers and smaller. Particles within this range are considered "inhalable particulates". The assessment examined the basis of the proposed U.S. EPA PM2.5 standards (i.e., 24-hour PM2.5 concentration of 65 |ag/m3 and annual PM2.5 concentration of 15 fxg/m3), how it relates to protecting public health, and potential health effects of emissions of PM2.5 from the Jamaica Bay Facility on the nearby community. For purposes of this assessment it was assumed that the PM2,5 emissions from the proposed facility would be equivalent to the PM10 emissions (i.e. all particulate emissions are PM2.5). This is a conservative assumption since PM2.5 represents a portion of the total particulates emitted. While there is not sufficient monitored data for the project area and no approved U.S. EPA model for definitively assessing compliance with standards, based upon the assumption that 100 percent of PM10 emissions are PM2.5 and using the PM10 air quality modeling results, the maximum 24-hour concentration for PM2.5 due to project facility emissions (alone) would be 4.95 |ig/m3, while the maximum annual PM2.5 concentration due to project facility emissions (alone) would will be 0.014 |ig/m3. If these values are added to the corresponding NYSDEC measured value, the maximum total 24- hour concentration would be 41.7 ^g/m3, which would be well below the 24-hour PM2.5 ambient standard, and the maximum total annual concentration would be 12.9 ^g/m3, which would be below the 15 ng/m3 annual PM2.5 standard. hi addition to the primary PM2.5 that may be emitted by proposed Jamaica Bay Facility, NOx, SO2 and ammonia, are most likely to affect the formation of secondary particles. The reactions of these compounds are quite slow and may take several hours to many days, the rates depending on many factors such as background concentrations of trace- level and catalytic species, sunlight, temperature, relative humidity, and others. As such, these secondary particulates will not affect or contribute to the maximum air quality concentrations of PM2.5 particulate resulting from the primary emissions. The slow reaction times cause the plume to be very widely dispersed. Where dispersion has not diluted the emissions greatly, very little of the NOx, SO2 and ammonia would be converted to particles because of the time required for the transformation. Far from the facility where more of these gases would have been transformed, physical dispersion of the emissions would have diluted the impact to such an extent that it would be insignificant relative to background levels. As such, the Jamaica Bay Facility is expected to have no significant impact as a result of secondary fine particulates. In conclusion, the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would contribute only a small amount to both the annual and the short-term concentrations of PM2.5, and these contributions are not expected to significantly effect PM2.5 concentrations. Emissions of PM2.5 from the proposed facility would not significantly affect compliance with PM2.5 standards. These standards are set to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed facility would not be expected to result in any significant adverse PM2.5 health effects.

ES-15 Jamaica Bay M^ j^^utive Summary g. Climate Change The project's impact on climate change due to emissions of greenhouse or climate change gases (GHGs) was assessed. GHGs contribute to climate change by increasing the ability of the atmosphere to trap heat. The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). To express emissions of the different gases in a comparable way, a weighing factor called the Global Warming Potential (GWP) is often used, which relates the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere to a single gas (CO2). The proposed project would fire low sulfur distillate oil and natural gas. The greatest proportion of the potential GHG emissions from the Project would be as CO2 from the combustion process. Trace amounts of CH4 and N2O would also be emitted; however, emissions of these compounds are considered negligible when compared to the total CO2 emissions, even taking into consideration their GWP, and are therefore not considered significant to the climate change issues. As a conservative estimate, maximum CO2 emissions were estimated to be 522 x 106 pounds per year, or 0.237 teragrams (Tg) CO2 Eq. per year.1 To assess the proposed project impact on climate change, the project's maximum GWP was compared to state, national and global estimates of man-made CO2 emissions. The worst case annual emissions from the proposed project would be approximately 0.12 percent of the total New York CO2 inventory. On a national scale, the proposed project would contribute only approximately 0.004 percent to the total national emissions inventory of CO2. Finally, the proposed emissions of CO2 from the project would be less than 0.001 percent of the total annual global emission rate. In conclusion, the operation of the proposed facility would result in a negligible contribution to the state, national and global inventories of CO2 emissions, and therefore the impacts to general public health from project-related operations would be insignificant. h. Cumulative Air Impact Assessment

Introduction Potential cumulative impacts due to the six new combustion turbine projects that were constructed for LIP A for the Summer of 2002 (i.e., facilities at Shoreham, Edgewood, Glenwood, Port Jefferson, Bethpage, and Bayswater) and three separate combustion turbine projects that LIPA is considering for the Summer of 2003 (i.e. facilities to be located in North Bellport, Freeport, and the facility analyzed in this environmental assessment, Jamaica Bay). It should be noted that a possible fourth facility being considered for Summer 2003, to be located in Greenport, on the North Fork of Long Island, is not included in the quantitative cumulative impact assessment since stack and

1 GWP is taken as the equivalent heat-trapping ability of one teragram (Tg, or 1 billion kilograms) of CO2, expressed as Tg CO7 Eq.

ES-16 Jamaica Bav ^^ ^^Executive Summary

emission data is not currently available. However, if that facility were to proceed it would be subject to its own analysis and reviews. In addition, a cumulative analysis has been prepared which examined the proposed Jamaica Bay facility and eleven other generating facilities in New York City and vicinity. Cumulative Impact Assessment ofLIPA 2002/2003 Facilities

Cumulative effects of the LEPA 2002/2003 facilities on localized air quality were addressed by 1) examination of the relative locations of the projects, and the extent of the individual project concentrations downwind; and, 2) the distribution of overlapping project air quality impacts relative to the prevailing winds. With regard to the first item, the LEPA 2002/2003 facilities are widely spaced throughout Nassau, Suffolk and Queens Counties. This distribution of projects spreads the relatively low air emissions from each facility through a wide geographical area. Each of the facilities has individually demonstrated through air quality dispersion modeling of potential facility emissions, to have insignificant air quality impacts (i.e. maximum concentrations are below the SILs). The maximum concentrations for each facility would occur very close to the combustion turbines for each facility. The concentrations continue to decrease with distance from the sources, such that at the distance to the next adjacent source, the concentrations would be a scant fraction of the SIL and nearly immeasurable. With regard to the second item, it can be concluded that no significant cumulative interaction of the facilities would occur based upon an examination of the prevailing wind directions. The modeling results and comparison to the standards are presented in Table ES-4. As shown in the table, the combined air quality results indicate that the total concentrations (i.e., the cumulative effect of the LIPA 2002/2003 facilities and worst-case background levels) would not exceed the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the cumulative effect would not produce significant air quality impacts. While the Greenport facility was not quantitatively assessed, the potential interaction of its emissions with the other LIPA sources is expected to be negligible and insignificant. This is because of the large separation spatially with the other sources, and that the Greenport emissions will be predominantly downwind from all of the other sources. Furthermore, the maximum concentrations from Greenport are expected to be well below the SILs. Therefore, because the individual impacts of each facility are so small and the facilities are distributed geographically, there will be no cumulative impact from simultaneous operation of the LIPA 2002/2003 facilities. Detailed Cumulative Analysis A cumulative impact analysis was conducted using the ISCST3 model to assess the impact from the proposed Jamaica Bay facility along with other peaking plants and power projects in the area for comparison to the NAAQS. A cumulative impact assessment of these sources was performed using the same modeling procedures that

ES-17 Jamaica Bay ^^ytive Summary

Table ES-4: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts of LIPA 2002/2003 Facilities

Maximum Modeled Background Total Averaging Concentration Concentration Concentration NAAQS Pollutant Period (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) 1-hour 86.0 7,130 7,216 40,000 CO 8-hour 21.2 5,175 5,196 10,000 3-hour 3.4 147 150.4 1,300 SO2 24-hour 1.1 89 90.1 365 annual 0.12 26 26.1 80 24-hr 1.0 41 42.0 150 PM10 annual 0.12 19 19.1 50 NO2 annual 0.10 47 47.1 100 were used for assessing impacts of the proposed facility alone. The analysis results shown on Table ES-5 demonstrate that the total concentrations (i.e., the cumulative effect of the proposed facility, the adjacent Bayswater and KeySpan facilities and other nearby modeled facilities, added to worst-case background levels) would not exceed the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the cumulative effect would not produce significant air quality impacts. Table ESi-5: Cumu lative Air Quality Impacts of Jamaica Bay and Eleven C >ther Faci lities

Maximum Modeled Background Total Averaging Concentration Concentration Concentration NAAQS Pollutant Period (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) 1-hour 318 7,192 7,510 40,000 CO 8-hour 128.8 5,220 5,349 10,000 3-hour 128.3 173 301.3 1,300 SO2 24-hour 57.8 77 135 365 Annual 0.6 21 21.6 80 24-hr 5.5 48 53.5 150 PM10 Annual 0.4 23 23.4 50 NO2 Annual 1.04 52.6 53.6 100

2.9 Noise The noise assessment of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility consisted of two parts: 1) an ambient noise monitoring program in the vicinity of the project site in order to characterize the existing noise environment; and 2) a noise modeling/impact evaluation of the project. The noise impact evaluation consisted of performing computer noise modeling of the major noise producing equipment and determining impacts based upon the change in one-hour equivalent noise levels (Leq(i)). An increase in noise levels of more than 6 dBA was considered a significant noise impact. In addition, for

ES-18 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary informational purposes an assessment was performed to evaluate consistency of the proposed project with three New York City noise level criteria: (1) The impact criteria contained in the City Environmental Quality Manual (CEQR) Technical Manual which compares the proposed action's future noise levels with the future noise levels without the proposed action and considers a 3-5 dBA increase in daytime and/or a 3 dBA increase in nighttime Leq(l) noise levels as a significant impact; (2) The Ambient Noise Quality Zone (ANQZ) criteria contain in the City Noise Code, and; (3) The Performance Standards contained in the City Zoning Resolution for Manufacturing Districts. Three receptor sites were selected for analysis. These three residential sites were the nearest sensitive receptor sites where the proposed facility might have a significant impact. At each site, short-term monitoring (20 minutes in duration) was conducted during the day and late at night. Measured noise levels were lowest during the late night hours, which is typical in this type of setting as activity decreases late at night. A computer noise model was utilized which calculated the project noise by summing the contributions from each of the major noise sources at the proposed facility. Noise level data for most of the major facility noise sources was obtained from equipment vendors. In cases where these data were not available, octave band spectra from comparable facilities was used in the analysis. The proposed facility has been designed to incorporate noise attenuation measures to reduce potential project impacts. These measures include two exhaust silencers, one inlet air silencer, and a gas turbine enclosure will be provided on each Swift Pac. In addition, the GSU transformer will be shielded from the residents to the west by a two-sided 30- foot high firewall, the dilution air cooling fans will use a suction silencer, and the ammonia dilution fans will duct the inlet and outlet to reduce sound levels. Model results, with attenuation measures incorporated, are presented in Table ES-6 and ES-7. Table ES-6 shows the calculated noise from the proposed facility alone, the measured ambient late night noise, the projected future total late night noise with the proposed facility (i.e., the sum of the facility and existing ambient noise levels), and the calculated maximum increase in noise due to the proposed facility (i.e., the difference between the future total noise with the proposed facility and existing late night noise levels). For purposes of this impact assessment, late night ambient noise levels were used because noise levels are lower at night, resulting in a more conservative analysis. At all three receptor sites the maximum increases in noise levels are well below the 6 dBA impact threshold. In fact, increases at all the receptor locations are shown to be 1 dBA or less, which is an imperceptible increase. Therefore, noise from the proposed facility would not result in any significant adverse impacts. Table ES-6 : Noise Modeling Results (dBA) Existing Project Total with No. Location Ambient Only the Project Increase 1 1425 Sunnyside Street 56 50 57.0 1.0 2 2805 Bay 28th Street 63 48 63.1 0.1 3 1388 Dickens Street 64 45 64.1 0.1 All values In Leqd).

ES-19 Jamaica Bay ^^ f ^utive Su mmary

Table ES-7: Octave Band Noise Levels Compared to Performance Standards Contained in the NYC Zoning Resolution (dBA) Octave Band (cycles per second No. Location 20- 75- 150- 300- 600- 1200- 2400- Above 75 150 300 600 1200 2400 4800 4800 NYC Residential District 74 69 64 58 52 47 43 40 Adjacent to M3 District 1 1425 Sunnyside Street 69 58 52 45 40 39 35 40 2 2805 Bay 28th Street 66 56 49 42 38 36 32 37 3 1388 Dickens Street 59 52 46 43 37 33 28 29 NYC M3 District 74 69 64 58 52 47 43 40 Property Line 1 Property Line 2 Property Line 3 Property Line 4

In terms of the three New York City noise level criteria described above: (1) the maximum increase in Leq(i) noise levels at any of the sensitive receptor locations would be 1.0 dBA which is less than the 3 dBA impact criteria contained in the City Environ- mental Quality Manual (CEQR) Technical Manual; (2) noise levels due to the proposed facility would be less than levels specified in the Ambient Noise Quality Zone (ANQZ) criteria contain in the City Noise Code, and; (3) as shown in Table ES-3 for all octave bands, noise levels at all three receptor locations would be less than the octave band limits specified in the Perfonnance Standards contained in the City Zoning Resolution for Manufacturing Districts. However, for two octave bands, at the property line between the project site and the KeySpan property (i.e., at the buffer zone between these two industrial properties) noise levels would exceed the octave band limits specified in the Performance Standards contained in the City Zoning Resolution for Manufacturing Districts. These exceedances, at this non-sensitive location would not constitute a significant adverse impact, and the proposed facility would satisfy the project's noise impact criteria and not have a significant adverse noise impact. 2.10 Infrastructure a. Water Supply NYCDEP conducted a hydrant flow test in March 2001 to confirm that adequate pressures and volume were available on mains adjacent to supply the Bayswater Peaking Facility with 500 gallons per minute (gpm). The test was updated by NYCDEP in November 2002, and it confirmed that the system can supply the required 650 gpm to the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility without an adverse impact on local and system water supply.

ES-20 Jamaica Bay ^^ ^ v—utive Summary b. Wastewater

The project site is located within the service area of the Rockaway Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP). The proposed facility has been designed to discharge facility sanitary effluents into the Bayswater sanitary system, which connects to the NYCDEP sanitary sewer system. The facility would produce wastewater for discharge to the sanitary sewer from two sources. One source is the two additional technicians needed for facility operations and maintenance. Using sewage generation rates from the CEQR Technical Manual, this volume is expected to be 50 gallons per day (gpd). The second source is process wastewater from area washdown and floor drains. The average process wastewater flow expected is 36,000 gpd. Compared to the design flow of 45 million gallons per day and current dry weather flow of 18 mgd, the proposed project's wastewater flows are minimal and would not have an adverse impact on the system's ability to handle and properly treat sanitary sewage. c. Stormwater Stormwater from the Jamaica Bay site would be directed to the retention basin, and then conveyed to the New York City storm sewer line using the Bayswater Peaking Facility's pumping system at a controlled rate. Certain stormwater areas, such as the secondary containment area of the distillate oil storage tank, will also utilize sumps for collection prior to the determination to direct the stormwater to the retention basin. This will add another level of protection for stormwater discharges. The existing stormwater connection permit would be modified prior to any discharge. In addition, a SPDES permit would be obtained from NYSDEC for both infiltration and discharge of collected stonnwater prior to plant operation. Any water collected and diverted to the stormwater retention basin will be passed through an oil/water separator as a precaution. d. Energy The energy demands of the proposed facility are considered to be insignificant in light of available supplies. The proposed facility would require minimal electrical energy for construction, operation, and routine maintenance, which could be obtained from KeySpan or Bayswater. The proposed facility would be constructed and operated to produce electrical energy for the adjacent power grid for use by businesses and residences in the LIPA served portion of Queens. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would tie its transmission line into the current KeySpan switchyard on site to increase the volume of electricity available for the community. 2.11 Hazardous Materials Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments were conducted in 2001 for the areas adjacent to the existing KeySpan facility, including the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility site. The environmental investigations showed slightly elevated concentrations of some metals in the soils underlying the historic fly ash storage area. A deed restriction was issued by NYCDEP for the 4-acre Bayswater site after review of the project environmental assessments. Since the area of the Phase II assessment covers the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility site, these same requirements are considered to be appropriate for

ES-21 Jamaica Bay m^ •witive Summary c- "-^ the Jamaica Bay project. The deed restrictions require submittal and approval of a health and safety plan for any future excavations that would occur at the site at depths below the capped portion of the site or that one foot of clean fill must be placed on uncapped portions of the site. The deed restrictions also require for all the areas, which would either be landscaped or covered with grass (not capped), a minimum of one foot of clean soil would be placed. Several control methods will be implemented to avoid significant adverse impacts that may potentially result from the project and to comply with the deed restrictions issued by the NYCDEP. Additionally, a health and safety plan (HASP) has been prepared and will be submitted to NYCDEP. It would be implemented during construction activities to minimize worker exposure and comply with the deed restriction. 2.12 Natural Resources No significant natural resources were identified on the project site. The Jamaica Bay Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat area and Critical Environmental Area is located adjacent to the western bulkhead of the facility site but would not be impacted due to the project location, construction, and operations within the landward limits of the existing bulkheads. The project would have no impacts to fish and wildlife communities due to its siting in a maintained portion within the Bayswater and KeySpan sites. There would be no direct water intake or discharge to Motts Basin specifically for the proposed facility. The project would maintain a buffer from nearby coastal areas and significant fish and wildlife habitats. Furthermore, the appropriate agencies, including FWS, NMFS, and Natural Heritage Program, have been contacted regarding the proposed project and they have indicated that they do not foresee any significant impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed facility. The National Parks Service, which has jurisdiction over the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, has indicated that they have no objections to the Jamaica Bay project. The NMFS has also indicated that, after review of the project, no further action regarding the Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is necessary. Therefore, the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility is not expected to have an adverse impact on the natural resources. 2.13 Coastal Zone Management The New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP) is the city's principal coastal zone management tool. Originally adopted in 1982, it establishes the city's policies for development and use of the waterfront and provides the framework for evaluating the consistency of all discretionary actions in the coastal zone with those policies. A revised WRP was approved by the City Council in October 1999. The 10 New York City coastal zone policies were reviewed and assessed, where applicable, for general consistency with the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. The 10 policies are: • Support and facilitate commercial and residential redevelopment; • Support water-dependent and industrial uses;

ES-22 Jamaica Bay ^^ ^^ Executive Summary

<* Promote boating and water-dependent transportation centers; Protect and restore the quality and function of ecological systems; Protect and improve water quality; Minimize the impacts caused by flooding and erosion; Minimize environmental degradation from solid waste and hazardous substances; Provide public access to and along New York City's coastal waters; Protect scenic resources that contribute to the visual quality of the coastal area; and Protect, preserve, and enhance historical, archaeological, and cultural legacy. The proposed Jamaica Bay facility would be consistent with all 10 policies 2,14 Construction Impacts Construction activities associated with the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would include site preparation, unit assembly and site finish, utility connections (natural gas, water and sewer, and electrical systems), and start-up testing. a. Traffic During construction, there would be new vehicle trips to and from the project site, including those from workers commuting to and from the site, as well as those from the movement of goods and equipment. The maximum number of workers on site is estimated to be approximately 75 to 100 during construction. Given typical construction hours, worker trips would be concentrated in off-peak hours and would not represent a substantial increase during peak travel periods. Therefore, vehicle trips associated with construction would not be likely to have any significant adverse impacts on surrounding streets. The maximum number of trucks is estimated to be approximately 40 per day during construction. Trucks would use prescribed truck routes based on community consultations and safety issues. The main generating unit would be delivered by barge and would not affect local traffic patterns. Based upon the relatively modest number of vehicular trips, and the short duration of construction, construction activities should not result in any significant traffic impacts. b. Hazardous Materials A Health and Safety Plan would be implemented during construction to minimize exposure of construction workers, workers on nearby sites, and others in the vicinity of areas of concern on site. The Health and Safety Plan defines emergency contacts, directions to local hospitals, worker safety training, and monitoring procedures, personal protective equipment, air monitoring equipment, action levels and appropriate mitigation and protective measures. In addition, all material removed from the site would be disposed of in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. With these measures, no significant impacts would occur during construction.

ES-23 Jamaica Bay ^^^^ flKutive Summary • ^ A, c. Air Quality Fugitive dust emissions are possible from earth movement, wind erosion, and traffic over unpaved areas. Appropriate fugitive dust control measures, including watering of exposed areas and dust covers for trucks, would be employed to minimize any impacts. As a result, no significant air quality impacts from fugitive dust emissions are anticipated, and the construction activities will be consistent with the New York City requirements. Mobile source emissions during construction may result from trucks delivering construction materials or removing debris, workers' private vehicles, and construction equipment operation. Because the location of the site is adjacent to roadways, truck deliveries and workers' private vehicles will not need to travel excessive distances, and are subsequently not expected to have a significant impact on mobile source emissions. Therefore, mobile source emissions are not expected to be significant. d. Noise and Vibration Increases in noise levels caused by delivery trucks, employees traveling to and from the site and other construction vehicles would not be significant, and would be limited to major access roadways to the project site. Increased noise levels caused by construction activities can be expected to be most significant during the stages of construction that require the use of impact equipment. In general, noise from construction activities associated with the proposed project, particularly operation of impact-type equipment, could be intrusive at the nearby school and playground located 0.25 miles southwest of the project site, and possibly some nearby residences and at Inwood Park across from Motts Basin. However, these impacts would be short-term in duration and would not be considered a significant adverse impact. During screw pile driving, the existing Bayswater and KeySpan facilities would experience perceptible vibration levels; however, the levels would not result in significant adverse impacts. No residences are located within distance for potential architectural damage or perceptible vibration. e. Erosion Control An erosion and sediment control plan with sequencing and specific details has been prepared for the project utilizing the "New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control Sediment Control." Proper implementation of the plan, and its sequence and maintenance schedule, would ensure minimal impacts associates with construction-related soil disturbance. Erosion control would be accomplished through a combination of structural as well as vegetative measures. The structural components include haybales barriers/silt fencing, inlet protection for existing or newly installed catch basins, and installation of a stabilized construction entrance. Temporary and permanent vegetative measures are proposed to stabilize soils on the site. In addition, Phase II stormwater regulations will apply since the construction will impact greater than one acre of property.

ES-24 Jamaica B^" ^^ ^ Executive Summary

2.15 Cumulative Impacts

A cumulative impact analysis was performed to examine whether the proposed project, cumulatively with other relevant facilities (i.e., facilities built for LIPA for the Summer of 2002, facilities proposed for LIPA for the Summer of 2003, and other nearby generating facilities), would have the potential for causing significant adverse environmental impacts. The cumulative impact analysis considered each of the environmental categories (i.e., land use and zoning, community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous materials, traffic, air quality, noise, etc.) analyzed above. Because of the very localized extent of each such facility's impacts, in all areas other than air quality, cumulatively the new LIPA electric generating facilities have no potential for significant impacts. With respect to air quality, the LIPA facilities would also have only very localized effects, though other larger facilities (not part of the LIPA system) could have broader impacts. Consequently, quantified analyses were performed to assess the potential cumulative air quality impacts of the proposed project together with such facilities. The detailed cumulative analyses contained in the "Air Quality" chapter show that all of the maximum concentrations from stack emissions would be below the applicable air quality standards. Therefore, in terms of air quality, the proposed project would not either individually or cumulatively, have any significant adverse environmental impacts. *

ES-25 OSEC FILES-ALBANY

2(D2N0V 15 AH1M5 Co/^Xb^'

Long Island Power Authority Jamaica Bay Energy Center

Environmental Assessment

Submitted to: Long Island Power Authority

Submitted by: FPL Energy, LLC

November 2002 PUBLIC^CEIVED sr- ,s FIUsrirv' 'AiBAHY•BAH */voy/5 '/••03

LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY JAMAICA BAY ENERGY CENTER

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

SUBMITTED TO: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY

SUBMITTED BY: FPL ENERGY, LLC Table of Contents

Executive Summary ES-1

1.0 Project Description 1-1 1.1 Introduction.... 1-1 1.2 Description of the Proposed Facility 1-2 1.3 Summary of Existing Site Conditions 1-3 1.4 Purpose and Need 1-3 1.5. Public Outreach 1-5 1.6 Permits, Approvals, and Notifications 1-7

2.1 Land Use, Zoning, and Neighborhood Character 2.1-1 2.1.1. Introduction 2.1-1 2.1.2. Existing Conditions 2.1-1 a. Existing Land Use 2.1-1 Project Site 2.1-1 400-Foot Study Area 2.1-1 Half-Mile Study Area 2.1-2 b. Zoning 2.1-2 Project Site 2.1-2 400-Foot Study Area 2.1-2 Half-Mile Study Area 2.1-2 c. Neighborhood Character 2.1-2 2.1.3. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2.1-3 a. Land Use 2.1-3 Project Site 2.1-3 400-Foot Study Area 2.1-3 Half-Mile Study Area 2.1-3 b. Zoning 2.1-3 Project Site 2.1-3 400-Foot Study Area 2.1-3 Jamaica Bay Table of Contents

Half-Mile Study Area 2.1-4 c. Neighborhood Character 2.1-4 2.2 Community Facilities 2.2-1 2.2.1. Existing Conditions 2.2-1 a. Project Site ...2.2-1 b. 400-Foot Study Area 2.2-1 c. Half-Mile Study Area 2.2-1 2.2.2. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2.2-1 a. Project Site 2.2-1 b. 400-Foot Study Area 2.2-2, c. Half-Mile Study Area 2.2-2

2.3 Historic Resources 2.3-1 2.3.1. Methodology 2.3-1 2.3.2. Existing Conditions 2.3-1 a. Historic Resources 2.3-1 2.3.3. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2.3-1 a. Historic Resources 2.3-1

2.4 Archaeological Resources 2.4-1 2.4.1. Methodology 2.4-1 2.4.2. Existing Conditions 2.4-1 2.4.3. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2.4-2

2.5 Visual Resources 2.5-1 2.5.1. Methodology .....2.5-1 2.5.2. Existing Conditions 2.5-1 a. Project Site 2.5-1 b. Project Area 2.5-1 c. One-Mile Study Area 2.5-2 2.5.3. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project ; 2.5-2

2.6 Environmental Justice 2.6-1 2.6.1. Introduction '. 2.6-1 2.6.2. Existing Conditions 2.6-1 a. Area Toxic Inventory 2.6-3 Project Site. 2.6-3 Jamaica Bay Table of Contents

Quarter-Mile Study Area 2.6-4 Half-Mile Study Area 2.6-4 2.6.3. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2.6-4 2.6.4. Conclusion 2.6-5

2.7 Traffic and Transportation 2.7-1

2.8 Air Quality 2.8-1 2.8.1. Introduction 2.8-1 2.8.2. Permitting Requirements 2.8-1 2.8.3. Facility Design 2.8-1 2.8.4. Emission Quantities and Stack Parameters 2.8-1 2.8.5. Attainment Status and Compliance with Air Quality Standards... 2.8-2 a. Non-Attainment New Source Review (NSR) 2.8-3 b. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Potential to Emit 2.8-4 c. Other Applicable Federal and New York State Regulations 2.8-4 U.S. EPA Regulations 2.8-4 NYSDEC Regulations 2.8-5 2.8.6. Air Quality Impact Analysis 2.8-5 a. Land Use Analysis 2.8-5 b. Good Engineering Stack Height 2.8-6 c. Dispersion Modeling Analysis 2.8-6 d. Meteorological Data 2.8-7 e. Receptors 2.8-8 f. Background Air Quality 2.8-8 2.8.7. Air Quality Analysis Results 2.8-8 2.8.8. Assessment of Accidental Ammonia Release 2.8-10 2.8.9. Analysis of Potential Air Quality and Health Effects of 2.8-11 Project-Related PM2.5 a. Introduction and Overview 2.8-11 b. The National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM2.5 2.8-12 c. Current Status of PM2.5 Regulations 2.8-14 d. Analytical Framework for Incremental PM2.5 Estimation 2.8-15 Emission Estimates. 2.8-15 e. Modeling Methodology 2.8-15 f. Potential Project-Related PM2.5 Impacts 2.8-15 Potential Maximum Increases in PM2.5 Concentrations 2.8-15 g. Current Levels of PM2.5 in Ambient Air 2.8-16 h. Formation of Secondary PM2.5 2.8-17

in Jamaica Bay Table of Contents

i. Potential Public Health Effects 2.8-19 j. Biologically Active PM2.5 May be Harmful 2.8-21

k. PM2.5 Rich in Metals May be Harmful 2.8-21 1. PM2.5 from Turbine Generators 2.8-21 m. Conclusion 2.8-22 2.8.10.Global Climate Change 2.8-22 a. Summary of the Kyoto Protocol 2.8-22 Commitments 2.8-23 Implementation 2.8-23 Minimizing Impacts on Developing Countries 2.8-23 Accounting, Reporting, and Review 2.8-23 Compliance '. 2.8-24 b. United States Global Climate Change Policy 2.8-24 c. New York State Climate Change Policy 2.8-24 d. Potential Project Emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) 2.8-26 e. Comparison to State, National and Global Emissions 2.8-26 f. Importance of Emissions 2.8-27 g. Conclusion 2.8-28 2.8.11. Cumulative Impact Analyses 2.8-28 a. Introduction 2.8-28 b. Cumulative Impact Assessment of LIPA 2002/2003 Facilities 2.8-28 c. Detailed Cumulative Analysis 2.8-29

2.9 Noise 2.9-1 2.9.1. Introduction 2.9-1 2.9.2. Sound Level Fundamentals 2.9-1 A. A-Weighted and Octave Bands 2.9-1 B. Sound Level Descriptors 2.9-1 C. Community Response to Change in Sound Levels 2.9-2 2.9.3. Noise Regulations and Criteria 2.9-2 A. New York City Noise Code 2.9-2 B. New York City Performance Standards for Manufacturing Districts 2.9-3 C. New York City CEPO-CEQR Noise Standards 2.9-3 D. New York State Department of Transportation 2.9-4 E. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 2.9-5 F. Impact Criteria 2.9-5 2.9.4. Existing Conditions 2.9-5 A. Sound Level Measurement Locations 2.9-5 B. Measurement Methodology 2.9-6

IV Jamaica Bay Table of Contents

C. Measurement Eq.uipment 2.9-6 D. Baseline Ambient Noise Levels 2.9-6 2.9.5. No-Build Conditions '. 2.9-7 2.9.6. Noise Prediction Methodology 2.9-7 2.9.7. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2.9-9

2.10 Infrastructure 2.10-1 2.10.1. Introduction 2.10-1 2.10.2.Existing Conditions 2.10-1 a. Water Supply 2.10-1 b. Wastewater 2.10-1 c. Stormwater.. '. 2.10-1 d. Solid Waste.... .2.10-2 e. Energy 2.10-2 2.10.3. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2.10-2 a. Water Supply 2.10-2 b. Wastewater 2.10-2 c. Stormwater 2.10-3 d. Solid Waste.; 2.10-3 e. Energy 2.10-3

2.11 Hazardous Materials 2.11-1 2.11.1. Methodology 2.11-1 2.11.2. Existing Conditions '. 2.11-1 a. Land Use History 2.11-1 b. Regulatory Database Review 2.11-2 c. Current Site Conditions 2.11-2 d. Phase I and Phase 11 Environmental Assessments 2.11-2 2.11.3.Probable Impacts of the Project 2.11-3 a. Potential for Site Contamination 2.11-3 b. Control Methods 2.11-4

2.12 Natural Resources 2.12-1 2.12.1.Methodology 2.12-1 2.12.2. Existing Conditions ; 2.12-1 a. Site Conditions 2.12-1 b. NYSDEC Tidal Wetland Jurisdiction 2.12-2 Jamaica Bay Table of Contents

c. Federal, State, and Local Parks 2.12-2 d. Species of Special Concern 2.12-3 2.12.3.Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 2.12-3

2.13 Coastal Zone Management 2.13-1 2.13.1. Introduction 2.13-1 2.13.2.Related Regulations 2.13-1 2.13.3. Methodology 2.13-1

2.14 Construction 2.14-1 2.14.1. Introduction 2.14-1 a. Pre-Construction Site Preparation... 2.14-1 b. Unit Assembly and Site Finish 2.14-2 c. Utility Connections 2.14-2 d. Start-Up and Testing 2.14-3 2.14.2.Potential Impacts and Control Methods '. 2.14-3 a. Traffic '. 2.14-3 b. Hazardous Materials 2.14-4 c. Air Quality 2.14-4 Fugitive Emissions , 2.14-4 Mobile Source Emissions 2.14-5 Noise and Vibration , 2.14-5 Noise '. 2.14-5 Vibration 2.14-7 Erosion Control 2.14-7

2.15 Cumulative Impacts 2.15-1

3.0 References. 2.15-1

v; List of Tables

ES-1: Major Source Thresholds and Project Potential Emission Rates ES-12 ES-2: Maximum Pollutant Concentrations ES-12 ES-3 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts ES-13 ES-4 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts of LIPA 2002/2003 Facilities ES-17 ES-5 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts of Jamaica Bay and Eleven Other Facilities ES-17 ES-6 Noise Modeling Results (dBA) ES-18 ES-7 Octave Band Noise Levels Compared to Performance Standards Contained ES-19 in the NYC Zoning Resolution (dBA) 2.5-1 Viewing Points 2.5-3 2.6-1 Environmental Justice Statistics for Jamaica Bay in Far Rockaway 2.6-2 2.8-1 Performance, Stack and Emissions Data for the Pratt & Whitoey FT8 2.8-2 Swift-Pac Combustion Turbine Firing Natural Gas 2.8-2: Performance, Stack and Emissions Data For The Pratt & Whitoey FT8.'. 2.8-3 Swift-Pac Combustion Turbine Firing Distillate Oil 2.8-3: National Ambient Air Quality Standards 2.8-4 2.8-4: Comparison of Potential Emissions with Non-Attainment/PSD NSR 2.8-5 Major Source Thresholds 2.8-5: Closest Available/Representative Monitoring Stations 2.8-9 2.8-6: Observed Ambient Air Quality Concentrations and Selected 2.8-9 Background Levels 2.8-7: Comparison of Maximum Modeled Concentrations for Jamaica Bay 2.8-9 Facility with Criteria Pollutant Significant Impact Levels 2.8-8: Comparison of Modeled Concentrations for Jamaica Bay Facility 2.8-10 and Bayswater Peaking Facility with Criteria Pollutant National Ambient Air Quality Standards 2.8-9: PM2.5 Component Contribution 2.8-12 2.8-10: Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations (pg/m3) 2.8-16 2.8-11: New York State—CO2 Emissions Inventory by Sector (Tg CO2 Eq.) 2.8-27 2.8-12: United States—CO2 Emissions Inventory for Electricity Generation 2.8-27 (TgC02Eq.) 2.8-13: Stack Parameters 2.8-29 2.8-14: Emissions 2.8-29 2.8-15: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts 2.8-30 2.8-16: Background Source Parameters for Cumulative Impact Analysis 2.8-31

vn Jamaica Bay List of Tables

2.8-17: Results of ISCST3 Refined Cumulative Impact Modeling 2.8-32 2.9-1: Human Reaction to Increases in Sound Pressure Levels 2.9-2 2.9-2: New York City Ambient Noise Quality Zone Criteria (dBA) 2.9-3 2.9-3: New York City Performance Standards for Manufacturing Districts 2.9-4 Maximum Permitted Sound Pressure Levels after Adjusting for Adjoining Residential Zone (dBA) 2.9-4: FHWA Fixed Noise Criteria 2.9-4 2.9-5: Existing Ambient Noise Levels (dBA) 2.9-7 2.9-6: Sound Power Levels of Major Sources of Facility Noise 2.9-8

2.9-7: Future Broadband Leq Noise Levels Near the Project Site (dBA) 2.9-9 2.9-8: Future Octave Band Noise Levels Near the Project Site (dBA) 2.9-10 2.14-1: Typical Noise Emission Levels for Construction Eq.uipment 2.14-6 2.14-2: Vibration-Induced Risk Criteria for Buildings 2.14-7

vm List of Figures

Following Page

1-1 Site Location 1-1 1-2 Site Aerial View 1-1 1-3 Proposed Jamaica Bay Facility 1-1 1-4 Site Plan 1-3 1-5 Low Angle Oblique Photograph of All Generating Facilities 1-3 1-6 Low Angle Oblique Photograph of Proposed Site : 1-3 2.1-1 Existing Land Use ; 2.1-1 2.1-2 Zoning Map 2.1-2 2.1-3 Zoning Map Nassau County 2.1-2 2.2-1 Community Facilities 2.2-1 2.5-1 Visual Assessment Points , 2.5-2 2.5-2 Location 1: View East Towards the Facility from Broad Channel Station 2.5-2 2.5-3 Location 2: View from Bayswater Point State Park 2.5-2 2.5-4 Location 3: View from Bayswater Park 2.5-2 2.5-5 Photo Simulation of Jamaica Bay Facility from Inwood Park 2.5-2 2.5-6 Location 5: View of Existing Facility from Inwood Country Club Entrance 2.5-2 2.5-7 Location 6: View of Existing Facility from Westboume Playground 2.5-2 2.5-8 Location 7: View of Existing Facility from Rockaway Community Park 2.5-2 2.5-9 Location 8: View of Existing Facility from Rockaway Post Office 2.5-2 2.5-10 Location 9: View of Existing Facility from Sage Memorial 2.5-2 (First Presbyterian) Church 2.5-11 Photo Simulation of Jamaica Bay Facility from Sunnyside Street 2.5-4 2.6-1 Census Tracts 2.6-1 2.6-2 Toxics Targeting—V* Mile Radius Map 2.6-3 2.6-3 Toxics Targeting—Vi Mile Radius Map 2.6-3 2.6-4 Toxics Targeting—1 Mile Radius Map 2.6-3

IX Jamaica Bay List of Figures

2.8-1 Site Plan 2.8-1 2.8-2 Plot Plan ." 2.8-1 2.8-3 Locations of the Nine LIPA 2002/2003 Projects 2.8-28 2.8-4 Long Island MacArthur Airport Windrose 1991-1995 2.8-29 2.8-5 Location of Maximum Cumulative Impacts 2.8-31 2.9-1 Noise Monitoring Locations 2.9-5 2.11-1 Areas of Potential Environmental Concern 2.11-1 2.12-1 Natural Resources Features ....2.12-1 2.12-2 NYSDEC Jurisdictional Boundaries 2.12-2 2.13-1 Environmental Sensitivity Index Shoreline Habitats 2.13-3 2.13-2 100-Year Flood Plain Map 2:i3-5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 Project Description

1.1 Introduction To meet the need for additional generating capacity and to improve system reliability on the portion of the Long Island Power Authority (LEPA) grid serving Queens in New York City, LIPA is considering entering into a 15-year power purchase agreement with Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC, a subsidiary of FPL Energy, LLC (FPLE), to purchase the output from a new electrical generating facility to be constructed at a site in Far Rockaway, Queens. The proposed facility, to be called the Jamaica Bay Energy Center (or Jamaica Bay Facility), would consist of one simple-cycle duel-fueled 54-megawatt (MW) Pratt & Whitney FT-8 Swift-Pac comprising two combustion turbines with a single generator. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would be located on a 2-acre parcel of land adjacent to two existing generating facilities—the Bayswater Peaking Facility (a 44-MW facility owned by Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC, a subsidiary of FPLE), and the KeySpan Far Rockaway Generating Facility (a 105-MW facility owned by KeySpan)—at Sunnyside and Bay 28th Streets in Queens. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would be located on property that is currently owned by LIPA and leased to Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC, which would sub-lease approximately two acres of property to Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC, for the proposed facility. Approximately three acres of additional land would be leased from KeySpan for temporary use during construction as a staging and laydown area. Because the maximum output of the proposed facility would be less than 80 MW, the proposed facility would not be a major generating facility subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Electric Generation Siting and the Environment, pursuant to Article X of the Public Service Law. A petition has been submitted to the New York State Board of Electric Generation Siting and the Environment seeking confirmation that the proposed facility is not subject to review under Article X. The objective of this Environmental Assessment is to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), and to provide the basis for LIPA, as the SEQR lead agency, to make an informed decision as to whether the proposed action may result in any significant adverse environmental effects and thus require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. This Environmental Assessment examines potential environmental impacts in all of the relevant environmental disciplines, including land use and zoning, neighborhood character, community facilities, cultural resources, visual resources, traffic and transportation, air quality, noise, infrastructure, hazardous materials, costal zone management, and construction. Because it is expected that the proposed facility would be constructed and operating within 8 months and no material changes are expected during this period, future conditions without the proposed project would be the same as existing conditions. Consequently, impacts are assessed by

ES-1 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary comparing future conditions with the proposed facility to existing conditions without the facility Although the proposed facility constitutes a discrete action under SEQR, and is not dependent on the approval of any other facility, this assessment nevertheless includes, where relevant to ensure a conservative analysis, potential impacts from other proposed facilities under consideration by LIP A for the Summer of 2003, as well as the other facilities referred to in the discussion of cumulative impacts below. 1.2 Description of the Proposed Facility

The Jamaica Bay Facility would consist of one nominal 54 megawatt (MW) Pratt & Whitney FT-8 Swift-Pac comprising of two gas turbines (each with a nominal capacity of 27 MW) with a single generator. The turbine generating unit is designed with dual-fuel capability and would utilize 0.05 percent low sulfur No. 2 distillate oil for primary fuel and natural gas as a startup and backup fuel, as available. The proposed facility would have the capability of receiving distillate fuel either by barge or truck. Barge delivery would be the preferred mode of delivery, and truck transport would be utilized as a back-up mode of fuel delivery. The fuel oil would be stored in a single 300,000-gallon tank with a 110 percent secondary containment protection steel shell and impervious bottom. Barge unloading would be along the recently refurbished bulkhead, on the north side of the site. The oil receiving equipment includes moorings, receiving boom and response equipment, and fire protection equipment in accordance with applicable codes. Distillate oil would be transferred from the unloading area to the storage tank via a pipeline. It is estimated that one barge delivery per week would be required. Distillate oil received by truck would enter from Bay 24th Street entrance, and proceed to a truck unloading containment area that would be designed and constructed for the facility. All oil receiving areas would be equipped with oil-water containment and separators. Distillate oil would be supplied to the turbine generator oil fuel skid via a forwarding pump through a pipeline. A foam fire protection system would be installed. Natural gas for startup and backup fuel would be connected to the existing Bayswater facility gas delivery system. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would utilize the Bayswater facility's gas compressor; however, a separate meter would be installed to monitor gas flow to the Jamaica Bay Facility. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would use New York City water and sewers. Water and sewer connections would be installed from the Bayswater facility's infrastructure and would have independent meters. Site stormwater would be directed into a stormwater retention basin and then, if needed, into an existing New York City stormwater line. There would be no direct discharges into Motts Basin from the Jamaica Bay Facility. A State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit would be obtained for operation of the Jamaica Bay Facility for discharge of collected storm water to the New York City storm sewers. The Jamaica Bay Facility would incorporate a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS), Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and an oxidation catalyst to achieve low

ES-2 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary

nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emission rates. The facility would be a minor air source. 1.3 Summary of Existing Site Conditions The project site is located entirely within the property boundaries of the existing Bayswater and KeySpan Far Rockaway generating facilities (Figure 1-3). It is bordered by Bayswater and Motts Basin to the north, vacant land to the south, existing KeySpan generating facilities to the east and Sunnyside Street and Bay 28th Street to the west. The project site encompasses approximately two acres of land currently owned by LIPA and leased to Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC, which will sublease the two acres to Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility LLC. Additional vacant land immediately adjacent to the site would also be temporarily used for construction staging and laydown. The site has been heavily disturbed due to past operational activities at the KeySpan Generating Facility. A site layout is shown in Figure 1-4. Aerial photographs of the site are shown in Figures 1-5 and 1-6. As shown on the figures and photographs, the project site has been altered by the development and operation of both the KeySpan and Bayswater facilities. In fact, the site has been in continuous industrial use for over 100 years. The two-acre Jamaica Bay site is located within the fenced four-acre Bayswater facility property and the additionally fenced 23.4-acre KeySpan site. Currently, the project site is the vacant portion of the Bayswater facility site and contains a transmission line through the middle of the site. The Jamaica Bay Facility site is currently unvegetated, compacted soil. The site is bounded by the Bayswater facility to the north, and the KeySpan facility to the east. Adjacent residential properties to the west and south are screened from the proposed site by the 100- to 130-foot vegetated buffer and setback along Sunnyside Street and Bay 28th Street. 1.4 Purpose and Need As set forth in LIPA's Draft Energy Plan 2002-2011, LIPA has determined that there is a need for an additional 200 MW to meet the energy needs of the LEPA service area for the summer of 2003 and to prevent Long Island's generating capacity from slipping below prudent levels in future years. After 2003, LIPA's projections of future energy needs on Long Island indicate that the peak demand will grow each year by approximately 100 MW between now and 2011. The peak load is projected to increase approximately 1.7 percent per year during this period. The need for additional generating capacity on Long Island became very evident during July 2002. On July 3, 2002, during a heat wave, power demand reached a new record of 5,030 MW. On July 29, 2002, that record was broken when the demand for electricity reached 5,059 MW. The total energy usage for July 2002 exceeded that of July 2001 by 21 percent. Given this level of growth, the loss of a large generating unit or major transmission interconnection could have a devastating impact on the electrical system. To guard against these potentially severe consequences, LIPA has developed a stringent set of criteria that takes into consideration the specific operational conditions or contingencies

ES-3 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary that impact resource planning in the LIPA service area. These criteria require LIPA to have sufficient resources available to ensure uninterrupted service to the residents of Long Island and those portions of Queens served by LIPA. The New York Independent System Operation (NYISO) requires LIPA to either own, or have contracts for, generating capacity and other resources to meet peak summer demand, plus a reserve of 18 percent. Resources available to satisfy this demand include power generation facilities and other demand-side resources. The reserve requirement is necessary in the event of possible outages of power plants, as well as weather conditions that may be warmer than anticipated, as was the case during the past three summers. In addition to requiring an 18 percent reserve, NYISO also requires LIPA to maintain a locational-based installed capacity within LIPA's service area due to the limited transmission capacity in the area. Transmission capacity is limited because of the area's geographical separation from the major transmission infrastructure in New York State's electric grid. The LIPA service area is one of only two areas in the state on which this requirement is imposed—the other is New York City. This locational requirement is set at 93 percent of the expected summer peak demand. Although LEPA is currently meeting the NYISO's resource adequacy criteria, due to projected increased electricity demand LIPA must secure the construction of additional generating capacity to maintain system reliability. Even with the availability of existing resources, Long Island continues to be very close to its capacity limits and immediate action is necessary to avoid the risk of system-wide voltage reductions, business shutdowns and rolling blackouts in the summer of 2003 and beyond. Long Island's transmission and capacity constraints are aggravated by the fact that the generating infrastructure in the LIPA system is relatively old. The majority of the generating capacity is derived from facilities that are more than 30 years old, and a significant portion of the generating capacity is derived from facilities that are more than 40 years old. During the summer of 2002 peak demand period, virtually all of the LIPA generating facilities were operating, and well over 95 percent of the generating capacity was available. Due to regional demands for electricity, the availability of additional capacity from the NYISO to LIPA's service area was extremely strained. Had any significant equipment failures occurred on LIPA's system, emergency measures and possibly rolling area blackouts would have been necessary to maintain the integrity of the system. During periods of peak demand, LIPA is currently required to import electricity into the city from facilities on Long Island or elsewhere in order to meet demand in Far Rockaway and other portions of Queens. Once operational, the proposed facility would reduce this requirement. 1.5 Public Outreach During the preliminary planning of Jamaica Bay, several outreach meetings have been held to discuss the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. These include meetings with:

ES-4 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary

New York State District 23, Assemblywoman Audrey Pheffer New York City District 32, Councilman Joe Addabbo Chief of Staff to Assemblywoman Pheffer, Jo Ann Shapiro Environmental Council, Grahm Ennis New York City Community Board 14, Executive Director Jonahan Gaska Chief of Staff to New York City District 31, Councilman James Sanders, Patrick White Deputy Council to Queens Borough President, Monica Norris Bayswater Civic Association, President Gloria Warshofsky Bayswater Civic Association, Board Member Manny Fox Bayswater Civic Association, past-President Stan Ehrlich Chamber of Commerce of the Rockaways, Executive Director Liz Sulik Chamber of Commerce of the Rockaways, President John LaPore Chamber of Commerce of the Rockaways, First Vice-President John Hennessey Jamaica Bay Eco-Watchers President, Dan Mundy National Park Service, Refuge Manager Don Riepe National Park Service, National and Cultural Resources, Research Coordinator KimTripp Gateway National Recreation Area, Assistant Superintendant David Arvin Richard B. Miller, Senior Vice President, New York City Economic Development Corporation Michael Delaney, Energy Policy Advocate, New York City Economic Development Corporation Queens Borough President Helen Marshall Joann Shapiro, Chief of Staff to Assemblywoman Audrey Pheffer Tom Tobin, for Councilman Joseph Addabbo Alia Nesmith, for Councilman James Sanders Jerry LeMure, Queens Borough President's office Seth Bomstein, Economic Development, Queens Borough President Hugh Weinberg, Council, Queens Borough President Gloria Cohen, Bayswater Resident Barbara Cohen, Bayswater Resident Mickey Cohen, Bayswater Resident Patrick Clark, Bayswater Resident

ES-5 Jamaica Bay - Executive Summary

Additional meetings with elected and governmental officials, representatives of the community and environmental interest groups, and others, are expected to take place as the project progresses. Two open houses are planned to discuss the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility project with the community in November and December. In addition, tours of the Bayswater Facility and the site of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility have been conducted with community leaders. 1.6 Permits, Approvals, and Notifications Development and operation of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would require or include the following federal, state and local regulatory agency notifications, actions, permits and approvals. Federal Aviation Administration • Stack Height Federal Energy Regulatory Commission • Exempt Wholesale Generator • Market Based Rate Authority US Environmental Protection Agency • Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Control Plan . • Facility Response Plan US Coast Guard Operations • Operations Manual and Facility Response Plan Long Island Power Authority • Consent to Sublease of site from Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC • Facility Power Purchase Agreement New York State Department of Environmental Conservation • State Facility Air Permit • Title V Air Operating Permit • Acid Rain Permit • SPDES Permit • Phase II Stormwater Notice of Intent • Chemical Bulk Storage Permit • Petroleum Bulk Storage Permit New York State Public Service Commission • Lightened Regulation and Approval of Financing • Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

ES-6 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary

New York City Department of Environmental Protection • Air Permit to Construct (Work Permit) • Certificate to Operate Air Contamination Sources • Health and Safety Plan 2.0 Potential Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Actions

2.1 Land Use, Zoning, and Neighborhood Character

The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility site encompasses an area of approximately two acres, located within the fenced-in area owned by KeySpan and LIP A, and contains the Bayswater Peaking Facility and KeySpan Generating Facility. Both the Bayswater Peaking Facility and KeySpan Generating,Facility are currently in operation and are part of a parcel of land that has been in continuous use for power production since at least 1953. The Jamaica Bay Facility project site area is currently an unvegetated vacant portion of the Bayswater site. Adjacent properties to the west and south are screened from the proposed site by the 100- to 130-foot vegetated buffer along Sunnyside Place and Bay 24th Street. Residential areas within the half-mile study area mainly consist of single-family homes. The institutional land uses within this study area consist of P.S. 104 District 27 Bayswater School and Westboume Playground, Bayswater Point State Park, Inwood Park (Nassau County), and Nassau County Department of Public Works, which has a local garage located across Motts Basin directly opposite the existing facility. Gateway National Recreation Area is located west of the proposed facility. There are three commercial properties within one-half mile of the site: the Inwood Country Club, a Brooklyn Union Gas facility and tank farm for home heating oil. Because of the existing power generating uses adjacent to the proposed project site and the site historically has been used in conjunction with energy production, land use conditions would not change significantly as a result of the operation of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. Siting the facility immediately adjacent to existing power facilities provides the project the ability to utilize the existing infrastructure attendant to these facilities, thereby minimizing the acreage of land required to be disturbed and associated impacts. Additionally, the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would be located entirely within the existing fenced site. There would be no impacts to the 100-foot vegetated buffer between residences, the project site, and Bayswater and KeySpan facilities along Sunnyside Place or Bay 24th Street, although a limited number of trees may be removed on the project site adjacent to the buffer area. As such, no significant impacts to the existing land uses present within the project area are anticipated as a result of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. The project site is located within an area zoned as M3-1, designated for manufacturing use, which allows power-generating facilities. The proposed facility is consistent with the existing zoning and land use. Therefore, the proposed facility would not have a significant adverse impact with regard to zoning.

ES-7 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary

2.2 Community Facilities

An inventory of community facilities (schools, hospitals, religious facilities, etc.) has been taken within a half-mile radius of the project site to assess the potential impacts, if any, of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility on these facilities. Community facilities in this study area included P.S. 104 District 27 Bayswater School and Westboume Playground, Bayswater Point State Park, and Inwood Park. Other local institutional land uses included the Far Rockaway Post Office and the Nassau County Department of Public Works, which has a local garage located across Motts Basin directly opposite the existing facility. The proposed facility would not result in the placement of additional students in local schools or impact local recreational facilities to serve their community. Moreover, the proposed facility would not have any significant adverse air quality, noise, or visual impacts on any community facilities. Consequently, the proposed facility would not result in any significant adverse impacts on any community facilities. 2.3 Historic Resources As part of the previously constructed Bayswater facility, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) had issued a letter of No Significant Impact for cultural or historic resources that included the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility site. In October 2002, OPRHP was contacted and requested to update its letter of determination and identify any known historic resources on the proposed facility site, defined as the 2-acre area of construction and 3-acre temporary laydown area. OPRHP subsequently reviewed the historic resource files and determined that the project would have no effect on federal, state, or local listed historic structures on site or in the vicinity of the project area. The New York City Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) was also contacted regarding a landmark review requested for this area. A preliminary review was conducted on the LPC website and no landmarks were identified within the vicinity of the project site. Based upon the LPC review of the Bayswater site, LPC is expected to concur that the proposed Jamaica Bay site would not have any significant impacts on any historic resources. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts on any historic resources would be expected with the proposed facility. 2.4 Archaeological Resources Reviews of historic aerial photographs and Sanbom maps have indicated that the proposed facility site and project area are within an area that has been continuously developed and has undergone extensive disturbance for the past 100 years. Additionally, a preliminary search was conducted on the LPC web site and no landmarks were identified. Therefore, with regard to archaeological resources, no significant adverse impacts are expected with the proposed facility. 2.5 Visual Resources The site location for the proposed project was selected in order to preserve the existing 100-foot vegetated setback buffer along Sunnyside Street and Bay 28th Street, which would act as a screen for the residences located across Mott Avenue as well as for Westboume Playground (at Mott Avenue and Bay 25th Street). A limited number of trees

ES-8 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary that encroach into the project site area would be removed but vegetation within the 100- foot setback area would remain. FPL proposes to enhance the visual buffer in this area with additional tree plantings, landscaping, and other screening measures. The most visible portion of the proposed facility would be the 110-foot emission stack. In comparison, the KeySpan facility, which has been part of the viewscape for nearly 50 years, contains a 266-foot stack. The newly constructed Bayswater facility's 110-foot stack would be comparable to the stack height of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would also include a 40-foot high oil tank, which would be screened by the 100-foot vegetated setback buffer to the south and west and by Bayswater to the north. The line of vision to the project site and proposed facility (2-acre footprint) from the surrounding sensitive receptors is either obscured or dominated by the existing and larger (3-acre footprint) KeySpan facility and the comparable Bayswater facility. The existing KeySpan facility would partially screen the views of the proposed project area from the residential and commercial properties to the east. Residential properties to the west would also not be significantly impacted as shown by the photo simulation of the project area including the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility and the planned inclusion of additional landscaping and tree plantings. The stack would also be painted in a neutral gray color, similar to the Bayswater facility, thereby minimizing potential impacts. Because of the already dominant view of the larger KeySpan facility and its associated transmission towers, the view of the proposed facility is not considered a significant visual impact. Additionally, the existing 100-foot buffer, and other dominant structures would screen most views of the proposed facility. The proposed facility would be a distant visual element to views from Gateway National Recreation Area and Rockaway Community Park, and other structures and vegetation would screen most views. The proposed facility would ultimately be incorporated into the existing industrial landscape imposed by the more dominant view of the KeySpan facility, and would not result in a significant adverse impact on existing viewsheds in the project area. 2.6 Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice While there is currently no requirement to include an environmental justice analysis as part of SEQR, an environmental justice analysis has been provided for informational purposes. The focus of an environmental justice analysis is the determination of whether the construction and operation of a proposed facility would have both adverse and disproportional impacts on an environmental justice community. The socioeconomic characteristics of the neighborhoods on either side of the project site differ considerably. Those to the east of the project site have median household incomes that meet the definition of a low-income community, while those on the west and north sides do not meet the definition of a low-income community. Both of the communities east and west of the facility meet the definition of a minority community, but the percent minority population in the neighborhoods to the east of the property is much higher than in the neighborhoods to the west.

ES-9 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary

Overall, the area within the half-mile study area of the proposed Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility does not meet the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) definition of a low-income area. The median household income is roughly equal to Queens County. The half-mile study area meets NYSDEC's definition of a minority community. Once the presence of a low-income or minority community has been documented, NYSDEC guidance on environmental justice defines two steps to determine if potential environmental impacts are likely to adversely affect communities of concern. The steps are to identify potential environmental impacts and to determine whether impacts are likely to adversely affect a minority or low-income community. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility is not expected to have any significant adverse impacts on the surrounding community. Air quality analysis results show that the emissions from the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would result in pollutant concentrations that would be well below applicable air quality standards. A cumulative air quality analysis found that the emissions from the existing KeySpan, Bayswater, and other nearby generating facilities together with the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would not exceed applicable air quality standards. Therefore, although a potential low-income and minority community of concern was identified within the vicinity of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility, evaluation of the proposed project has not identified any significant adverse impacts on a short term or cumulative basis to low-income or minority populations. In accordance with the environmental justice objectives defined by NYSDEC, there would be no disproportionate impact on minority population near the proposed facility. 2.7 Traffic and Transportation The proposed facility would not adversely impact existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would generate a small number of vehicle trips. Maintenance and operations for the proposed facility would be managed by two workers, who would not be present at the facility at all times. During normal operation, the proposed facility would generate a maximum of two vehicle trips per hour. Periodically during maintenance, there may be as many as eight vehicle trips per hour. The very small number of trips generated by the proposed facility, even when staffed, would not significantly increase traffic on local roadways. Therefore, the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would not have the potential to impact vehicle traffic. One barge trip per week to supply fuel oil would not have a significant adverse impact on the maritime traffic in and around Jamaica Bay. 2.8 Air Quality a. Introduction The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would have a net output of approximately 54 MW to the electric grid. Operating limits would be implemented so that annual emissions of all air pollutants would not exceed "major stationary source" thresholds as defined in 40 CFR 52.21 and 6 NYCRR Parts 201 and 231. The facility would be permitted as a minor

ES-10 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary source and/ for NSR purposes, is considered as a minor modification to the existing Bayswater Peaking Facility. As such, the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review (NNSR) rules would not apply to the proposed facility. b. Facility Design The facility would consist of a simple cycle Pratt & Whitney Model FT8 Swift Pac (i.e., two combustion turbines) that would bum primarily low sulfur (0.05 percent) distillate fuel oil or natural gas. Water injection and SCR would be used to control nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions to 6.0 parts per million (ppm) when firing fuel oil, and 2.5 ppm when firing natural gas. Carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions would be minimized through the use of good combustion practices and would be further reduced through the use of an oxidization catalyst. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM) and particulate matter having a diameter less than 10 microns (PM10) would be minimized through the use of natural gas and low sulfur distillate fuel. c. Facility Emissions Projected annual emissions for the project are summarized in Table ES-1 and compared with the major source thresholds—PSD and NNSR. The state facility air permit application submitted to NYSDEC requests operating limits which would limit facility emissions to the values shown in this table and consequently keep the facility's air emissions below major source thresholds. Maximum fuel consumption is estimated to be approximately 13,800,000 gallons per year combusting distillate oil exclusively and 4,744 million cubic feet per year combusting natural gas exclusively (based on average ambient temperature of 590F). d. Pollutant Concentrations The air quality impacts due to emissions of criteria pollutants (i.e., those pollutants of concern which include, PM10, SO2, NO2, and CO) were assessed using state-of-the-art air dispersion simulation models. The dispersion modeling for the Jamaica Bay Facility was performed consistent with the procedures found in U.S. EPA documents and NYSDEC requirements. It utilized the U.S. EPA Industrial Source Complex-Short Term (ISCST3) Version 02035 model with rural dispersion parameters, 5 years of meteorological data (from JFK Airport, Queens, NY with upper air sounding data from Brookhaven National Labs, Upton, NY), and a polar grid of receptors going out to 3 kilometers with additional sensitive receptors. To obtain total concentrations for comparison to Ambient Air Quality Standards, the highest representative measured background values obtained using 3 years of recent data from nearby NYSDEC monitoring stations was combined with the highest or second highest model predicted value. The maximum predicted concentrations from the proposed facility (alone) are shown in Table ES-2.

ES-11 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary

Table ES-1: Major Source Thresholds and Project Potential Emission Rates Major Source Thresholds PSD NNSR Annual Facility Pollutant,a, (TPY*) (TPY) Emissions (TPY)'^ Carbon Monoxide 250 NO. emissions based on an annual operating to maintain minor source status. Emissions of remaining pollutants conservatively assume that NO. emissions are controlled below the SCR vendor guarantee of 6.0 ppm when burning oil, which could result In increased operating hours. Source: 6 NYCRR 231-2 and 40 CFR 52.21 (b) (23) (I)

Table ES-2: Maximum Pollutant Concentrations

Maximum Modeled Significant Concentration Impact PSD Class Due to Facility Averaging Level II Increment Alone NAAQS Pollutant Period (ug/ms) (ug/ms) (ug/mJ) (ug/m3)

8-hour 500 — 3.0 10,000 3-hour 25 512 12.3 1,300

S02 24-hour 5 91 2.5 365 Annual 1 20 0.009 80 24-hour 5 30 4.95 150 PMto Annual 1 17 0.014 50 NO2 Annual 1 25 0.002 100

Maximum .predicted concentrations from the proposed facility plus the adjacent Bayswater Facility (with SCR) were combined with highest representative measured background levels for comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Table ES-3 presents the results. This modeling analysis determined that the facility's emissions would not result in air quality concentrations that exceed the recognized SILs. Emissions from the proposed facility would not result in significant air quality concentrations. Additionally, the maximum total concentrations resulting from emissions from the proposed facility plus the Bayswater Peaking Facility added to the highest representative background concentrations are below applicable NAAQS.

ES-12 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary

Table ES-3: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts

Maximum Modeled Concentration From Proposed Facility and Bayswater Background Maximum Total Averaging Facility Concentration Concentration NAAQS 1 J s Pollutant Period (ug/m1) (ug/m ) (ug/m ) (ug/m ) 1-hour 31.8 7,192 7,223.8 40,000 CO 8-hour 12.2 5,220 5,232.2 10.000 3-hour 7.4 173 180.4 1,300 so2 24-hour 1.4 76.8 78.2 365 Annual 0.009 21 21.01 80 24-hour 3.2 48 51.2 150 PM,o Annual 0.040 23 23.04 50 NO2 Annual 0.02 52.6 52.63 100

Consequently, the proposed facility would not have a significant air quality impact or exceed the applicable NAAQS. e. Accidental Ammonia Release Aqueous ammonia would be used as the reducing agent in the project's SCR system for controlling NOx emissions from the turbines. The NOx reduction achieved by the SCR system is affected by the ratio of ammonia (NH3) to NOx. Because of the need for a constant supply, aqueous ammonia (a mixture containing approximately 19 percent by weight ammonia in water) would be stored on-site in an 12,000 gallon steel storage tank approximately 315 feet from the nearest offsite public receptor. Due to the dilute concentration of the aqueous ammonia (less than 20 percent), the project's ammonia solution is not subject to the U.S. EPA's Risk Management Program for regulated toxic and flammable substances (40 CFR Part 68). However, to ensure the health and safety of the community surrounding the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility, the potential for off-site impacts resulting from a worst-case ammonia release scenario (e.g., rupture of the tank wall) using the protocols established in U.S. EPA's Risk Management Program regulations (40 CFR Part 68) was assessed. To predict the potential worst-case impact distance, the HGSYSTEM model was used. Based upon this model predicted concentrations of ammonia at the closest offsite public receptor distance of approximately 315 feet is less than 100 ppm. This value is well below the American Industrial Hygiene Association Emergency Response Guidelines Level 2 (EPRG-2) 150 ppm short-term exposure value. This 150 ppm value represents the maximum airborne concentration below which nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to an hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or.other serious health effects. Therefore, the defined worst-case accidental release scenario would not result in any adverse health effects due to ammonia beyond the property boundary, and even with this conservative approach, no significant impacts would occur.

ES-13 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary f. PM2.S Impact An assessment was made of the potential effects of fine particulates (PM2.5) on public health and welfare. The term PM2.5 refers to the particle size range equivalent to 2.5 micrometers and smaller. Particles within this range are considered "inhalable particulates". The assessment examined the basis of the proposed U.S. EPA PM2.5 standards (i.e., 24-hour PM2.5 concentration of 65 ng/m3 and annual PM2.5 concentration of 15 ^m3), how it relates to protecting public health, and potential health effects of emissions of PM2 5 from the Jamaica Bay Facility on the nearby community. For purposes of this assessment it was assumed that the PM2.5 emissions from the proposed facility would be equivalent to the PM10 emissions (i.e. all particulate emissions are PM2.5). This is a conservative assumption since PM2.5 represents a portion of the total particulates emitted. While there is not sufficient monitored data for the project area and no approved U.S. EPA model for definitively assessing compliance with standards, based upon the assumption that 100 percent of PM10 emissions are PM2.5 and using the PM10 air quality modeling results, the maximum 24-hour concentration for PM2.5 due to project facility emissions (alone) would be 4.95 |ig/m3, while the maximum annual PM2.5 concentration due to project facility emissions (alone) would will be 0.014 ^g/m3. If these values are added to the corresponding NYSDEC measured value, the maximum total 24- hour concentration would be 41.7 ^g/m3, which would be well below the 24-hour PM2.5 ambient standard, and the maximum total annual concentration would be 12.9 ng/m3, which would be below the 15 |ag/m3 annual PM2.5 standard. In addition to the primary PM2.5 that may be emitted by proposed Jamaica Bay Facility, NOx, SO2 and ammonia, are most likely to affect the formation of secondary particles. The reactions of these compounds are quite slow and may take several hours to many days, the rates depending on many factors such as background concentrations of trace- level and catalytic species, sunlight, temperature, relative humidity, and others. As such, these secondary particulates will not affect or contribute to the maximum air quality concentrations of PM2.5 particulate resulting from the primary emissions. The slow reaction times cause the plume to be very widely dispersed. Where dispersion has not diluted the emissions greatly, very little of the NOx, SO2 and ammonia would be converted to particles because of the time required for the transformation. Far from the facility where more of these gases would have been transformed, physical dispersion of the emissions would have diluted the impact to such an extent that it would be insignificant relative to background levels. As such, the Jamaica Bay Facility is expected to have no significant impact as a result of secondary fine particulates. In conclusion, the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would contribute only a small amount to both the annual and the short-term concentrations of PM2.5, and these contributions are not expected to significantly effect PM2.5 concentrations. Emissions of PM2.5 from the proposed facility would not significantly affect compliance with PM2.5 standards. These standards are set to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed facility would not be expected to result in any significant adverse PM2.5 health effects.

ES-14 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary g. Climate Change The project's impact on climate change due to emissions of greenhouse or climate change gases (GHGs) was assessed. GHGs contribute to climate change by increasing the ability of the atmosphere to trap heat. The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4); and nitrous oxide (N2O). To express emissions of the different gases in a comparable way, a weighing factor called the Global Warming Potential (GWP) is often used, which relates the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere to a single gas (CO2). The proposed project would fire low sulfur distillate oil and natural gas. The greatest proportion of the potential GHG emissions from the Project would be as CO2 from the combustion process. Trace amounts of CH4 and N2O would also be emitted; however, emissions of these compounds are considered negligible when compared to the total CO2 emissions, even taking into consideration their GWP, and are therefore not considered significant to the climate change issues. As a conservative estimate, maximum CO2 emissions were estimated to be 522 x 106 pounds per year, or 0.237 teragrams (Tg) CO2 Eq. per year.1 To assess the proposed project impact on climate change, the project's maximum GWP was compared to state, national and global estimates of man-made CO2 emissions. The worst case annual emissions from the proposed project would be approximately 0.12 percent of the total New York CO2 inventory. On a national scale, the proposed project would contribute only approximately 0.004 percent to the total national emissions inventory of CO2. Finally, the proposed emissions of CO2 from the project would be less than 0.001 percent of the total annual global emission rate. In conclusion, the operation of the proposed facility would result in a negligible contribution to the state, national and global inventories of CO2 emissions, and therefore the impacts to general public health from project-related operations would be insignificant. h. Cumulative Air Impact Assessment Introduction Potential cumulative impacts due to the six new combustion turbine projects that were constructed for LIPA for the Summer of 2002 (i.e., facilities at Shoreham, Edgewood, Glenwood, Port Jefferson, Bethpage, and Bayswater) and three separate combustion turbine projects that LIPA is considering for the Summer of 2003 (i.e. facilities to be located in North Bellport, Freeport, and the facility analyzed in this environmental assessment, Jamaica Bay). It should be noted that a possible fourth facility being considered for Summer 2003, to be located in Greenport, on the North Fork of Long Island, is not included in the quantitative cumulative impact assessment since stack and

1 GWP is taken as the equivalent heat-trapping ability of one teragram (Tg, or 1 billion kilograms) of CO2, expressed as Tg CO2 Eq.

ES-15 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary emission data is not currently available. However, if that facility were to proceed it would be subject to its own analysis and reviews. In addition, a cumulative analysis has been prepared which examined the proposed Jamaica Bay facility and elevien other generating facilities in New York City and vicinity. Cumulative Impact Assessment of LIPA 2002/2003 Facilities

Cumulative effects of the LIPA 2002/2003 facilities on localized air quality were addressed by 1) examination of the relative locations of the projects, and the extent of the individual project concentrations downwind; and, 2) the distribution of overlapping project air quality impacts relative to the prevailing winds. With regard to the first item, the LEPA 2002/2003 facilities are widely spaced throughout Nassau, Suffolk and Queens Counties. This distribution of projects spreads the relatively low air emissions from each facility through a wide geographical area. Each of the facilities has individually demonstrated through air quality dispersion modeling of potential facility emissions, to have insignificant air quality impacts (i.e. maximum concentrations are below the SILs). The maximum concentrations for each facility would occur very close to the combustion turbines for each facility. The concentrations continue to decrease with distance from the sources, such that at the distance to the next adjacent source, the concentrations would be a scant fraction of the SIL and nearly immeasurable. With regard to the second item, it can be concluded that no significant cumulative interaction of the facilities would occur based upon an examination of the prevailing wind directions. The modeling results and comparison to the standards are presented in Table ES-4. As shown in the table, the combined air quality results indicate that the total concentrations (i.e., the cumulative effect of the LIPA 2002/2003 facilities and worst-case background levels) would not exceed the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the cumulative effect would not produce significant air quality impacts. While the Greenport facility was not quantitatively assessed, the potential interaction of its emissions with the other LIPA sources is expected to be negligible and insignificant. This is because of the large separation spatially with the other sources, and that the Greenport emissions will be predominantly downwind from all of the other sources. Furthermore, the maximum concentrations from Greenport are expected to be well below the SILs. Therefore, because the individual impacts of each facility are so small and the facilities are distributed geographically, there will be no cumulative impact from simultaneous operation of the LIPA 2002/2003 facilities. Detailed Cumulative Analysis A cumulative impact analysis was conducted using the ISCST3 model to assess the impact from the proposed Jamaica Bay facility along with other peaking plants and power projects in the area for comparison to the NAAQS. A cumulative impact assessment of these sources was performed using the same modeling procedures .that

ES-16 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary

Table ES-4: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts of LIPA 2002/2003 Facilities

Table ESi-5: Cumu lative Air Quality Impacts of Jamaica Bay and Eleven C >ther Faci ities

Maximum Modeled Background Total Averaging Concentration Concentration Concentration NAAQS Pollutant Period (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) 1-hour 318 7,192 7,510 40,000 CO 8-hour 128.8 5,220 5,349 10,000 3-hour 128.3 173 301.3 1,300 SO2 24-hour 57.8 77 135 365 Annual 0.6 21 21.6 80 24-hr 5.5 48 53.5 150 PM,o Annual 0.4 23 23.4 50 NO2 Annual 1.04 52.6 53.6 100

ES-17 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary informational purposes an assessment was performed to evaluate consistency of the proposed project with three New York City noise level criteria: (1) The impact criteria contained in the City Environmental Quality Manual (CEQR) Technical Manual which compares the proposed action's future noise levels with the future noise levels without the proposed action and considers a 3-5 dBA increase in daytime and/or a 3 dBA increase in nighttime Leq(l) noise levels as a significant impact; (2) The Ambient Noise Quality Zone (ANQZ) criteria contain in the City Noise Code, and; (3) The Performance Standards contained in the City Zoning Resolution for Manufacturing Districts. Three receptor sites were selected for analysis. These three residential sites were the nearest sensitive receptor sites where the proposed facility might have a significant impact. At each site, short-term monitoring (20 minutes in duration) was conducted during the day and late at night. Measured noise levels were lowest during the late night hours, which is typical in this type of setting as activity decreases late at night. A computer noise model was utilized which calculated the project noise by summing the contributions from each of the major noise sources at the proposed facility. Noise level data for most of the major facility noise sources was obtained from equipment vendors. In cases where these data were not available, octave band spectra from comparable facilities was used in the analysis. The proposed facility has been designed to incorporate noise attenuation measures to reduce potential project impacts. These measures include two exhaust silencers, one inlet air silencer, and a gas turbine enclosure will be provided on each Swift Pac. In addition, the GSU transformer will be shielded from the residents to the west by a two-sided 30- foot high firewall, the dilution air cooling fans will use a suction silencer, and the ammonia dilution fans will duct the inlet and outlet to reduce sound levels. Model results, with attenuation measures incorporated, are presented in Table ES-6 and ES-7. Table ES-6 shows the calculated noise from the proposed facility alone, the measured ambient late night noise, the projected future total late night noise with the proposed facility (i.e., the sum of the facility and existing ambient noise levels), and the calculated maximum increase in noise due to the proposed facility (i.e., the difference between the future total noise with the proposed facility and existing late night noise levels). For purposes of this impact assessment, late night ambient noise levels were used because noise levels are lower at night, resulting in a more conservative analysis. At all three receptor sites the maximum increases in noise levels are well below the 6 dBA impact threshold. In fact, increases at all the receptor locations are shown to be 1 dBA or less, which is an imperceptible increase. Therefore, noise from the proposed facility would not result in any significant adverse impacts. Table ES-6 : Noise Modeling Results ( dBA) Existing Project Total with No. Location Ambient Only the Project Increase 1 1425 Sunnyside Street 56 50 57.0 1:0 2 2805 Bay 28th Street 63 48 63.1 0.1 3 1388 Dickens Street 64 45 64.1 0.1 All values in Uq(i).

ES-18 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary

^^ Table ES-7: Octave Band Noise Levels Compared to Performance Standard; 5 ^9 Contained in the NYC Zoning Resolution (dBA) Octave Band (cycles per second No. Location 20- 75- 150- 300- 600- 1200- 2400- Above 75 150 300 600 1200 2400 4800 4800 NYC Residential District 74 69 64 58 52 47 43 40 Adjacent to M3 District 1 1425 Sunnyside Street 69 58 52 45 40 39 35 40 2 2805 Bay 28th Street 66 56 49 42 38 36 32 37 3 1388 Dickens Street 59 52 46 43 37 33 28 29 NYC M3 District 74 69 64 58 52 47 43 40 Property Line 1 Property Line 2 Property Line 3 Property Line 4

In terms of the three New York City noise level criteria described above: (1) the

maximum increase in Leq(i) noise levels at any of the sensitive receptor locations would be 1.0 dBA which is less than the 3 dBA impact criteria contained in the City Environ- mental Quality Manual (CEQR) Technical Manual; (2) noise levels due to the proposed facility would be less than levels specified in the Ambient Noise Quality Zone (ANQZ) ^^ criteria contain in the City Noise Code, and; (3) as shown in Table ES-3 for all octave ^B bands, noise levels at all three receptor locations would be less than the octave band limits'specified in the Performance Standards contained in the City Zoning Resolution for Manufacturing Districts. However, for two octave bands, at the property line between the project site and the KeySpan property (i.e., at the buffer zone between these two industrial properties) noise levels would exceed the octave band limits specified in the Performance Standards contained in the City Zoning Resolution for Manufacturing Districts. These exceedances, at this non-sensitive location would not constitute a significant adverse impact, and the proposed facility would satisfy the project's noise impact criteria and not have a significant adverse noise impact. 2.10 Infrastructure

a. Water Supply

NYCDEP conducted a hydrant flow test in March 2001 to confirm that adequate pressures and volume were available on mains adjacent to supply the Bayswater Peaking Facility with 500 gallons per minute (gpm). The test was updated by NYCDEP in November 2002, and it confirmed that the system can supply the required 650 gpm to the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility without an adverse impact on local and system water supply.

•

ES-19

• Jamaica Bay Executive Summary b. Wastewater The project site is located within the service area of the Rockaway Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP). The proposed facility has been designed to discharge facility sanitary effluents into the Bayswater sanitary system, which connects to the NYCDEP sanitary sewer system. The facility would produce wastewater for discharge to the sanitary sewer from two sources. One source is the two additional technicians needed for facility operations and maintenance. Using sewage generation rates from the CEQR Technical Manual, this volume is expected to be 50 gallons per day (gpd). The second source is process wastewater from area washdown and floor drains. The average process wastewater flow expected is 36,000 gpd. Compared to. the design flow of 45 million gallons per day and current dry weather flow of 18 mgd, the proposed project's wastewater flows are minimal and would not have an adverse impact on the system's ability to handle and properly treat sanitary sewage. c. Stormwater Stormwater from the Jamaica Bay site would be directed to the retention basin, and then conveyed to the New York City storm sewer line using the Bayswater Peaking Facility's pumping system at a controlled rate. Certain stormwater areas, such as the secondary containment area of the distillate oil storage tank, will also utilize sumps for collection prior to the determination to direct the stormwater to the retention basin. This will add another level of protection for stormwater discharges. The existing stormwater connection permit would be modified prior to any discharge. In addition, a SPDES permit would be obtained from NYSDEC for both infiltration and discharge of collected stormwater prior to plant operation. Any water collected and diverted to the stormwater retention basin will be passed through an oil/water separator as a precaution. d. Energy The energy demands of the proposed facility are considered to be insignificant in light of available supplies. The proposed facility would require minimal electrical energy for construction, operation, and routine maintenance, which could be obtained from KeySpan or Bayswater. The proposed facility would be constructed and operated to produce electrical energy for the adjacent power grid for use by businesses and residences in the LIPA served portion of Queens. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would tie its transmission line into the current KeySpan switchyard on site to increase the volume of electricity available for the community. 2.11 Hazardous Materials Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments were conducted in 2001 for the areas adjacent to the existing KeySpan facility, including the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility site. The environmental investigations showed slightly elevated concentrations of some metals in the soils underlying the historic fly ash storage area. A deed restriction was issued by NYCDEP for the 4-acre Bayswater site after review of the project environmental assessments. Since the area of the Phase II assessment covers the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility site, these same requirements are considered to be appropriate for

ES-20 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary the Jamaica Bay project. The deed restrictions require submittal and approval of a health and safety plan for any future excavations that would occur at the site at depths below the capped portion of the site or that one foot of clean fill must be placed on uncapped portions of the site. The deed restrictions also require for all the areas, which would either be landscaped or covered with grass (not capped), a minimum of one foot of clean soil would be placed. Several control methods will be implemented to avoid significant adverse impacts that may potentially result from the project and to comply with the deed restrictions issued by the NYCDEP. Additionally, a health and safety plan (HASP) has been prepared and will be submitted to NYCDEP. It would be implemented during construction activities to minimize worker exposure and comply with the deed restriction. 2.12 Natural Resources No significant natural resources were identified on the project site. The Jamaica Bay Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat area and Critical Environmental Area is located adjacent to the western bulkhead of the facility site but would not be impacted due to the project location, construction, and operations within the landward limits of the existing bulkheads. The project would have no impacts to fish and wildlife communities due to its siting in a maintained portion within the Bayswater and KeySpan sites. There would be no direct water intake or discharge to Motts Basin specifically for the proposed facility. The project would maintain a buffer from nearby coastal areas and significant fish and wildlife habitats. Furthermore, the appropriate agencies, including FWS, NMFS, and Natural Heritage Program, have been contacted regarding the proposed project and they have indicated that they do not foresee any significant impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed facility. The National Parks Service, which has jurisdiction over the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, has indicated that they have no objections to the Jamaica Bay project. The NMFS has also indicated that, after review of the project, no further action regarding the Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is necessary. Therefore, the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility is not expected to have an adverse impact on the natural resources. 2.13 Coastal Zone Management The New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP) is the city's principal coastal zone management tool. Originally adopted in 1982, it establishes the city's policies for development and use of the waterfront and provides the framework for evaluating the consistency of all discretionary actions in the coastal zone with those policies. A revised WRP was approved by the City Council in October 1999. The 10 New York City coastal zone policies were reviewed and assessed, where applicable, for general consistency with the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. The 10 policies are: • Support and facilitate commercial and residential redevelopment; • Support water-dependent and industrial uses;

ES-21 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary

Promote boating and water-dependent transportation centers; Protect and restore the quality and function of ecological systems; Protect and improve water quality; Minimize the impacts caused by flooding and erosion; Minimize environmental degradation from solid waste and hazardous substances; Provide public access to and along New York City's coastal waters; Protect scenic.resources that contribute to the visual quality of the coastal area; and Protect, preserve, and enhance historical, archaeological, and cultural legacy. The proposed Jamaica Bay facility would be consistent with all 10 policies 2.14 Construction Impacts Construction activities associated with the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would include site preparation, unit assembly and site finish, utility connections (natural gas, water and sewer, and electrical systems), and start-up testing. a. Traffic During construction, there would be new vehicle trips to and from the project site, including those from workers commuting to and from the site, as well as those from the movement of goods and equipment. The maximum number of workers on site is estimated to be approximately 75 to 100 during construction. Given typical construction hours, worker trips would be concentrated in off-peak hours and would not represent a substantial increase during peak travel periods. Therefore, vehicle trips associated with construction would not be likely to have any significant adverse impacts on surrounding streets. The maximum number of trucks is estimated to be approximately 40 per day during construction. Trucks would use prescribed truck routes based on community consultations and safety issues. The main generating unit would be delivered by barge and would not affect local traffic patterns. Based upon the relatively modest number of vehicular trips, and the short duration of construction, construction activities should not result in any significant traffic impacts. b. Hazardous Materials A Health and Safety Plan would be implemented during construction to minimize exposure of construction workers, workers on nearby sites, and others in the vicinity of areas of concem on site. The Health and Safety Plan defines emergency contacts, directions to local hospitals, worker safety training, and monitoring procedures, personal protective equipment, air monitoring equipment, action levels and appropriate mitigation and protective measures. In addition, all material removed from the site would be disposed of in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. With these measures, no significant impacts would occur during construction.

ES-22 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary c. Air Quality Fugitive dust emissions are possible from earth movement, wind erosion, and traffic over unpaved areas. Appropriate fugitive dust control measures, including watering of exposed areas and dust covers for trucks, would be employed to minimize any impacts. As a result, no significant air quality impacts from fugitive dust emissions are anticipated, and the construction activities will be consistent with the New York City requirements. Mobile source emissions during construction may result from trucks delivering construction materials or removing debris, workers' private vehicles, and construction equipment operation. Because the location of the site is adjacent to roadways, truck deliveries and workers' private vehicles will not need to travel excessive distances, and are subsequently not expected to have a significant impact on mobile source emissions. Therefore, mobile source emissions are not expected to be significant. d. Noise and Vibration Increases in noise levels caused by delivery trucks, employees traveling to and from the site and other construction vehicles would not be significant, and would be limited to major access roadways to the project site. Increased noise levels caused by construction activities can be expected to be most significant during the stages of construction that require the use of impact equipment. In general, noise from construction activities associated with the proposed project, particularly operation of impact-type equipment, could be intrusive at the nearby school and playground located 0.25 miles southwest of the project site, and possibly some nearby residences and at Inwood Park across from Motts Basin. However, these impacts would be short-term in duration and would not be considered a significant adverse impact. During screw pile driving, the existing Bayswater and KeySpan facilities would experience perceptible vibration levels; however, the levels would not result in significant adverse impacts. No residences are located within distance for potential architectural damage or perceptible vibration. e. Erosion Control An erosion and sediment control plan with sequencing and specific details has been prepared for the project utilizing the "New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control Sediment Control." Proper implementation of the plan, and its sequence and maintenance schedule, would ensure minimal impacts associates with construction-related soil disturbance. Erosion control would be accomplished through a combination of structural as well as vegetative measures. The structural components include haybales barriers/silt fencing, inlet protection for existing or newly installed catch basins, and installation of a stabilized construction entrance. Temporary and permanent vegetative measures are proposed to stabilize soils on the site. In addition. Phase n stormwater regulations will apply since the construction will impact greater than one acre of property.

ES-23 Jamaica Bay Executive Summary

2.15 Cumulative Impacts A cumulative impact analysis was performed to examine whether the proposed project, cumulatively with other relevant facilities (i.e., facilities built for LIPA for the Summer of 2002, facilities proposed for LIPA for the Summer of 2003, and other nearby generating facilities), would have the potential for causing significant adverse environmental impacts. The cumulative impact analysis considered each of the environmental categories (i.e., land use and zoning, community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous materials, traffic, air quality, noise, etc.) analyzed above. Because of the very localized extent of each such facility's impacts, in all areas other than air quality, cumulatively the new LIPA electric generating facilities have no potential for significant impacts. With respect to air quality, the LIPA facilities would also have only very localized effects, though other larger facilities (not part of the LIPA system) could have broader impacts. Consequently, quantified analyses were performed to assess the potential cumulative air quality impacts of the proposed project together with such facilities. The detailed cumulative analyses contained in the "Air Quality" chapter show that all of the maximum concentrations from stack emissions would be below the applicable air quality standards. Therefore, in terms of air quality, the proposed project would not either individually or cumulatively, have any significant adverse environmental impacts.

ES-24 1.0 Project Description

1.1 Introduction

To meet the need for additional generating capacity and to improve system reliability on the portion of the Long Island Power Authority (LIP A) grid serving Queens in New York City, LIPA is considering entering into a 15-year power purchase agreement with Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC, a subsidiary of FPL Energy, LLC (FPLE), to purchase the output from a new electrical generating facility to be constructed at a site in Far Rockaway, Queens. The proposed facility, to be called the Jamaica Bay Energy Center (or Jamaica Bay Facility), would consist of one simple-cycle duel-fueled 54- megawatt (MW) Pratt & Whitney FT-8 Swift-Pac comprising two combustion turbines with a single generator. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would be located on a 2-acre parcel of land adjacent to two existing generating facilities—the Bayswater Peaking Facility (a 44-MW facility owned by Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC, a.subsidiary of FPLE), and the KeySpan Far Rockaway Generating Facility (a 105-MW facility owned by KeySpan)—at Sunnyside and Bay 28th Streets in Queens (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would be located on property that is currently owned by LIPA and leased to Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC (see Figure 1-3). The site of the proposed facility is zoned for heavy manufacturing use, and the proposed facility is consistent with local zoning. Jamaica Bay Peaking, LLC, would sub-lease approximately two acres of property from Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC, for the proposed facility. Approximately three acres of additional land would be leased from KeySpan, for temporary use during construction as a staging and laydown area. The maximum output of the proposed facility would be less than 80 MW, and consequently the proposed facility would not be a major generating facility subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Electric Generation Siting and the Environment, pursuant to Article X of the Public Service Law. A petition has been submitted to the New York State Board of Electric Generation Siting and the Environment seeking confirmation that the proposed facility is not subject to review under Article X. A copy of this petition and other supporting documentation is included as Appendix A of this Environmental Assessment (EA). The objective of this Environmental Assessment is to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), and to provide the basis for LIPA, as the SEQR lead agency, to make an informed decision as to whether the proposed action may result in any significant adverse environmental effects and thus require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. A completed Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) for this project is included in Appendix B. This Environmental Assessment is organized as follows: Section 1.0 is the Project Description which contains: a description of the proposed facility; an overview of existing site conditions; the project's purpose and need; the community outreach program; and required approvals and permits.

1-1 Jamaica Bay Chapter 1.0: Project Description

Section 2.0 is the Environmental Impact Assessment that provides a discussion of potential environmental impacts by specific environmental analysis disciplines (including land use and zoning, neighborhood character, community facilities, cultural resources, visual resources, traffic and transportation, air quality, noise, infrastructure, hazardous materials, coastal zone management, and construction). Because it is expected that the proposed facility would be constructed and operating within 8 months and no material changes are expected during this period, future conditions without the proposed project would be the same as existing conditions. Consequently, impacts are assessed by comparing future conditions with the proposed facility to existing conditions without the facility. Although the proposed facility constitutes a discrete action under SEQR, and is not dependent on approval of any other facility, this assessment nevertheless includes, where relevant to ensure a conservative analysis, potential impacts from other proposed facilities under consideration by LIP A for the Summer of 2003, as well as the other facilities referred to in the discussion of cumulative impacts below. 1.2 Description of the Proposed Facility The Jamaica Bay Facility would consist of one nominal 54 megawatt (MW) Pratt & Whitney FT-8 Swift-Pac comprising of two gas turbines (each with a nominal capacity of 27 MW) with a single generator. A brief description of the equipment is provided in Appendix C. , The turbine generating unit is designed with dual-fuel capability and would utilize 0.05 percent low sulfur No. 2 distillate oil for primary fuel and natural gas as a startup and backup fuel, as available. The proposed facility would have the capability of receiving distillate fuel either by barge or truck. Barge delivery would be the preferred mode of delivery, and truck transport would be utilized as a back-up mode of fuel delivery. The fuel oil would be stored in a single 300,000-gallon tank with a 110 percent secondary containment protection steel shell and impervious bottom. Barge unloading would be along the recently refurbished bulkhead, on the north side of the site. The oil receiving equipment includes moorings, receiving boom and response equipment, and fire protection equipment in accordance with applicable codes. Distillate oil would be transferred from the unloading area to the storage tank via a pipeline. It is estimated that one barge delivery per week would be required. Distillate oil received by truck would enter from Bay 24th Street entrance, and proceed to a truck unloading containment area that would be designed and constructed for the facility. All oil receiving areas would be equipped with oil-water containment and separators. Distillate oil would be supplied to the turbine generator oil fuel skid via a forwarding pump at a pressure of 20 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) through a pipeline. A foam fire protection system would be installed. Natural gas for startup and backup fuel would be connected to the existing Bayswater facility gas delivery system. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would utilize the Bayswater facility's gas compressor; however, a separate meter would be installed to monitor gas flow to the Jamaica Bay Facility. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would use New York City water and sewers. Water and sewer connections would be installed

1-2 Jamaica Bay Chapter 1.0: Project Description from the Bayswater facility's infrastructure and would have independent meters. Site stormwater would be directed into a stormwater retention basin and then, if needed, into an existing New York City stormwater line. There would be no direct discharges into Motts Basin from the Jamaica Bay Facility. A State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit would be obtained for operation of the Jamaica Bay Facility for discharge of collected storm water to the New York City storm sewers. The Jamaica Bay Facility would incorporate a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS), Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and an oxidation catalyst to achieve low nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emission rates. The facility would be a minor air source. 1.3 Summary of Existing Site Conditions The project site is located entirely within the property boundaries of the Bayswater and KeySpan Far Rockaway generating facilities (Figure 1-3). It is bordered by Bayswater and Motts Basin to the north, vacant land to the south, existing KeySpan generating facilities to the east and Sunnyside Street and Bay 28th Street to the west. The project site encompasses approximately two acres of land that is currently owned by LIPA and leased to Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC. Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC will sublease the two acres to Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility LLC. Additional vacant land immediately adjacent to the site would also be temporarily used for construction staging and laydown. The site has been heavily disturbed due to past operational activities at the KeySpan Generating Facility. A site layout is shown in Figure 1-4. Aerial photographs of the site are shown in Figures 1-5 and 1-6. As shown on the figures and photographs, the project site has been altered by the development and operation of both the KeySpan and Bayswater facilities. In fact, the site has been in continuous industrial use for over 100 years. The two-acre Jamaica Bay site is located within the fenced four-acre Bayswater facility property and the additionally fenced 23.4-acre KeySpan site. Currently, the project site is the vacant portion of the Bayswater facility site and contains a transmission line through the middle of the site. The Jamaica Bay Facility site is currently unvegetated, compacted soil. The site is bounded by the Bayswater facility to the north, and the KeySpan facility to the east. Adjacent residential properties to the west and south are screened from the proposed site by the 100- to 130-foot vegetated buffer and setback along Sunnyside Street and Bay 28th Street. 1.4 Purpose and Need As set forth in LIPA's Draft Energy Plan 2002-2011, LIPA has determined that there is a need for an additional 200 MW to meet the energy needs of the LIPA service area for the summer of 2003 and to prevent Long Island's generating capacity from slipping below prudent levels in future years. After 2003, LIPA's projections of future energy needs on Long Island indicate that the peak demand will grow each year by approximately 100 MW between now and 2011. The peak load is projected to increase approximately 1.7 percent per year during this period.

1-3 Jamaica Bay Chapter 1.0: Project Description

The need for additional generating capacity on Long Island became very evident during July 2002. On July 3, 2002, during a heat wave, power demand reached a new record of 5,030 MW. On July 29, 2002, that record was broken when the demand for electricity reached 5,059 MW. The total energy usage for July 2002 exceeded that of July 2001 by 21 percent. Given this level of growth, the loss of a large generating unit or major transmission interconnection could have a devastating impact on the electrical system. To guard against these potentially severe consequences, LIPA has developed a stringent set of criteria that takes into consideration the specific operational conditions or contingencies that impact resource planning in the LEPA service area. These criteria require LEPA to have sufficient resources available to ensure uninterrupted service to the residents of Long Island and those portions of Queens served by LIPA. The New York Independent System Operation (NYISO) requires LIPA to either own, or have contracts for, generating capacity and other resources to meet peak summer demand, plus a reserve of 18 percent. Resources available to satisfy this demand include power generation facilities and other demand-side resources. The reserve requirement is necessary in the event of possible outages of power plants, as well as weather conditions that may be warmer than anticipated, as was the case during the past three summers. In addition to requiring an 18 percent reserve, NYISO also requires LIPA to maintain a locational-based installed capacity within LIPA's service area due to the limited transmission capacity in the area. Transmission capacity is limited because of the area's geographical separation from the major transmission infrastructure in New York State's electric grid. The LEPA service area is one of only two areas in the state on which this requirement is imposed—the other is New York City. This locational requirement is set at 93 percent of the expected summer peak demand. Although LIPA is currently meeting the NYISO's resource adequacy criteria, due to projected increased electricity demand LIPA must secure the construction of additional generating capacity to maintain system reliability. Even with the availability of existing resources, Long Island continues to be very close to its capacity limits and immediate action is necessary to avoid the risk of system-wide voltage reductions, business shutdowns and rolling blackouts in the summer of 2003 and beyond. Long Island's transmission and capacity constraints are aggravated by the fact that the generating infrastructure in the LIPA system is relatively old. The majority of the generating capacity is derived from facilities that are more than 30 years old, and a significant portion of the generating capacity is derived from facilities that are more than 40 years old. During the summer of 2002 peak demand period, virtually all of the LIPA generating facilities were operating, and well over 95 percent of the generating capacity was available. Due to regional demands for electricity, the availability of additional capacity from the NYISO to LIPA's service area was extremely strained. Had any significant equipment failures occurred on LIPA's system, emergency measures and possibly rolling area blackouts would have been necessary to maintain the integrity of the system.

1-4 Jamaica Bay Chapter 1.0: Project Description

During periods of peak demand, LIPA is currently required to import electricity into the city from facilities on Long Island or elsewhere in order to meet demand in Far Rockaway and other portions of Queens. Once operational, the proposed facility would reduce this requirement. 1.5 Public Outreach

During the preliminary planning of Jamaica Bay, several outreach meetings have been held to discuss the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. A summary of these initial meetings is listed below. Far Rockaway Community Luncheon, October 21, 2002. The following representatives of government, agencies and industry groups were in attendance: New York State District 23, Assemblywoman Audrey Pheffer New York City District 32, Councilman Joe Addabbo Chief of Staff to Assemblywoman Pheffer, Jo Ann Shapiro Environmental Council, Grahm Ennis New York City Community Board 14, Executive Director Jonahan Gaska Chief of Staff to New York City District 31, Councilman James Sanders, Patrick White Deputy Council to Queens Borough President, Monica Norris Bayswater Civic Association, President Gloria Warshofsky Bayswater Civic Association, Board Member Manny Fox Bayswater Civic Association, past-President Stan Ehrlich Chamber of Commerce of the Rockaways, Executive Director Liz Sulik Chamber of Commerce of the Rockaways, President John LaPore Chamber of Commerce of the Rockaways, First Vice-President John Hennessey Jamaica Bay Eco-Watchers President, Dan Mundy Bert Cunningham, Vice President, Communications, Long Island Power Authority Tracy Burgess Levy, Communications, Long Island Power Authority The following community members were invited, but unavailable to attend the outreach meeting: • New York State District 10, Senator Malcolm Smith • Bayswater resident. New York Chapter American Littoral Society, New York State representative International Coastal Cleanup, Barbara Cohen • Natural Resources Defense Council, Katherine Kennedy

1-5 Jamaica Bay Chapter 1.0: Project Description

National Park Service at the Gateway National Recreation Area, October 21,2002. • In attendance were the following: • National Park Service, Refuge Manager Don Riepe • National Park Service, National and Cultural Resources, Research Coordinator Kim Tripp • Gateway National Recreation Area, Assistant Superintendent David Arvin • Jamaica Bay Eco-Watchers, Dan Mundy and five additional members of the Jamaica Bay Eco-Watchers New York City Economic Development Corporation, October 22,2002. In attendance were the following: • Richard B. Miller, Senior Vice President, New York City Economic Development Corporation • Michael Delaney, Energy Policy Advocate, New York City Economic Development Corporation • Stephen Rosen, Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Long Island Power Authority Environmental Consultants Jamaica Bay Helicopter Flyover with Jamaica Bay Eco-Watchers, October 23, 2002. On the flight was Dan Mundy, President, Jamaica Bay Eco-Watchers. Queen's Borough President's office, October 24, 2002. In attendance were the following: Queens Borough President Helen Marshall, Assemblywoman Audrey Pheffer Joann Shapiro, Chief of Staff to Pheffer: Jonathan Gaska, Executive Director Community Board 14 Tom Tobin, for Councilman Joseph Addabbo Alia Nesmith, for Councilman James Sanders Michael Delaney, Energy Policy Advocate for NYC Empire Development Corporation Jerry LeMure, Queens Borough President's office Seth Bomstein, Economic Development, Queens Borough President Hugh Weinberg, Council, Queens Borough President Ed Grilli, Chief of Staff, Long Island Power Authority

1-6 Jamaica Bay Chapter 1.0: Project Description

• Bert Cunningham, Vice President, Communications, Long Island Power Authority Chamber of Commerce of the Rockaways, October 28,2002. At a Business After Hours meeting, Dan Mundy announced the collaboration between Eco-Watchers and FPL Energy and the commitment to bring salt marsh expertise, mitigation bank specialists and financial support to the restoration project to help save Jamaica Bay. Also present at the meeting were JoAnn Shapiro and Patrick Clark, a Bayswater resident. In addition, numerous discussions were held with Liz Sulik, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce of the Rockaways. Follow up discussions with Gloria Warshofsky were held on October 30, 2002 to review concerns and schedule a meeting with her, Barbara Cohen, Jonathan Gaska, and Patrick Clark regarding the Norton Avenue Beach Restoration Project. New York City Economic Development Corporation, October 30, 2002. In attendance was Richard B. Miller, Senior Vice President, New York City Economic Development Corporation. Local Community Meeting, November 8,2002. In attendance were the following: • Gloria Cohen, Bayswater Resident • Barbara Cohen, Bayswater Resident • Mickey Cohen, Bayswater Resident • Patrick Clark, Bayswater Resident Additional meetings with elected and governmental officials, representatives of the community and environmental interest groups, and others, are expected to take place as the project progresses. Currently, meetings are planned with Christopher O. Ward, Commissioner-of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection and the National Park Service at the Gateway National Recreation Area, and two open houses are planned to discuss the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility project with the community in November and December. In addition, tours of the Bayswater Facility and the site of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility have been conducted with community leaders. 1.6 Permits, Approvals, and Notifications Development and operation of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would require or include the following federal, state and local regulatory agency notifications, actions, permits and approvals. Federal Aviation Administration • Stack Height

1-7 Jamaica Bay Chapter 1.0: Project Description

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission • Exempt Wholesale Generator • Market Based Rate Authority U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Control Plan • Facility Response Plan U.S. Coast Guard Operations • Operations Manual and Facility Response Plan Long Island Power Authority • Consent to Sublease of site from Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC • Facility Power Purchase Agreement New York State Department of Environmental Conservation • State Facility Air Permit • Title V Air Operating Permit • Acid Rain Permit • SPDES Permit • Phase II Stormwater Notice of Intent • Chemical Bulk Storage Permit • Petroleum Bulk Storage Permit New York State Public Service Commission • Lightened Regulation and Approval of Financing • Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity New York City Department of Environmental Protection • Air Permit to Construct (Work Permit) • Certificate to Operate Air Contamination Sources • Health and Safety Plan

1-8 2.1 Land Use, Zoning, and Neighborhood Character

2.1.1. Introduction This chapter provides an overview of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility site and the surrounding community. It outlines the existing conditions including the current land uses and zoning requirements within various specified radial areas of the site. This chapter also addresses impacts of the Jamaica Bay Facility on neighborhood character. Background information presented in this chapter was obtained through various literature searches, online searches, communications with agency personnel and field investigations. Key resources included: Environmental Data Resource® (EDR) reports, aerial photographs, visual field observations completed in February and March 2001 and October 2002, the New York City (NYC) Zoning Resolution, Article Four— Manufacturing District Regulations, and a current copy of Community District Needs— Queens, published by the NYC Department of City Planning (NYCDCP). Three overlapping study .areas were analyzed for this project. The first study area includes the proposed two-acre project site and adjacent three-acre temporary laydown area. The second area includes the area within a 400-foot radius of the proposed site, which encompasses the entire Jamaica Bay Facility site as well as the existing Bayswater and KeySpan sites. The third study area extends out from the 400-foot area to a radius of one-half mile. 2.1.2. Existing Conditions a. Existing Land Use Project Site The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility site encompasses an area of approximately two acres and is located within the fenced-in area owned by KeySpan and LIPA and containing the Bayswater Peaking Facility and KeySpan Generating Facility (see Figures 1-3 and 2.1-1). Both the Bayswater Peaking Facility and KeySpan Generating Facility are currently in operation and are part of a parcel of land that has been in continuous use for power production since at least 1953. The Jamaica Bay Facility project site area is currently an unvegetated vacant portion of the Bayswater site. Adjacent properties to the west and south are screened from the proposed site by the 100- to 130-foot vegetated buffer along Sunnyside Place and Bay 24th Street. 400-Foot Study Area The 400-foot study area comprises mainly portions of the two existing facilities and the Bayswater channel, which runs partially through the KeySpan site. Most of the 100- to 130-foot vegetated buffer (which is KeySpan property) between Sunnyside Place and the Bayswater Facility, as well as a small portion of a residential area to the south and west of the site, are also within the limits of the 400-foot study area.

2.1-1 Chapter 2.1: Land Use, Zoning, Jamaica Bay and Neighborhood Character Half-Mile Study Area The half-mile study area encompasses the entire 100- to 130-foot vegetated buffer along Sunnyside Place, Bay 24th Street, and areas of residential housing along the adjacent streets. The northern portion contains the open water areas of Motts Basin, parts of Bayswater Point State Park, Inwood Park (Nassau County), and the Nassau County Department of Public Works local garage. The residential areas north and east of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility site mainly consist of single-family homes. The institutional land uses within this study area consist of P.S. 104 District 27 Bayswater School and Westboume Playground, Bayswater Point State Park, and Inwood Park. Gateway National Recreation Area is located west of the proposed facility. There are several commercial properties within one-half mile of the site, mostly on the north side of Motts Basin, including: the Inwood Country Club, a Brooklyn Union Gas facility, several warehouses, and a tank farm for home heating oil. b. Zoning Project Site According to NYC Zoning Map Number 25B (see Figure 2.1-2), the project area is zoned as a manufacturing district, M3-1. Article Four, Chapter One of the New York City Zoning Resolution designates M3-1 districts as heavy manufacturing districts. Power production is a permitted use under this classification. 400-Foot Study Area The majority of the 400-foot study area is designated as M3-1, and is within the boundaries of the KeySpan and Bayswater facilities. A small portion of the 400-foot study area lies outside the facility's boundary to the north and east and contains public roadways and an area zoned R2—a low-density, residential district that only allows single-family, detached residences, and certain community facilities. Half-Mile Study Area The zoning within the half-mile area includes public roadways, parkland, open water, and residential housing. This area is almost completely composed of R2 and R5 districts, which are zoned for single or two-family residential homes. The area north of Motts Basin is in Nassau County and is zoned residential and industrial (see Figure 2.1-3). c. Neighborhood Character The Queens Community District 14, which includes the proposed facility site, is ethnically and economically diverse. The socioeconomic characteristics of the neighborhoods on either side of the project site differ considerably. Those to the east of the project site have median household incomes that meet the definition of a low-income community, while those on the west and north side do not meet the definition of a low- income community. Both of the communities east and west of the facility meet the definition of a minority community, but the percent minority population in the neighborhoods to the east of the property is much higher than in the neighborhoods to the

2.1-2 Chapter 2.1: Land Use, Zoning, Jamaica Bay and Neighborhood Character west. Eighty-two percent of the population within a Vi-mile radius of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility is minority. The area has a mixture of affluent one- or two-family dwellings as well as working-class families and public housing. The Far Rockaway and Bayswater neighborhoods surrounding the facility site are predominantly residential, with limited institutional and commercial properties. A small commercial district is located approximately 6 blocks east of the site, centered on the intersection of Sherman Boulevard and Bayswater Avenue. 2.1.3. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project

a. Land Use

Project Site Undeveloped land on the project site would be developed for use as a power generating facility. The proposed facility would be constructed on a parcel of land adjacent to the existing Bayswater and KeySpan facilities. Only the two-acre project site adjacent to the existing Bayswater and KeySpan facilities would be altered to install the necessary generating equipment (see Figure 1-4). The site has historically been used in conjunction with energy production. Therefore, the proposed facility would not have a significant adverse effect on land use. . 400-Foot Study Area The 400-foot study area consists primarily of existing power facilities and, therefore, the impacts on this area are expected to be negligible. There would be no land use impacts to the 100-foot vegetative buffer along Surmyside place, public roadways, or the residential area that falls within the 400-foot study area. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would not significantly affect land use outside of the project site within the 400-foot study area. Half-Mile Study Area The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would be located entirely within the existing fenced site on property in an area that has historically been used for power generation. The 100- foot setback buffer along Sunnyside Place or Bay 24th Street which separates residential uses from the project site would remain, although a limited number of trees may be removed on the project site adjacent to the buffer area. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would not significantly affect land use outside of the project site within the half- mile study area. b. Zoning Project Site The project site is within an area zoned as M3-1, designated for manufacturing use, which allows power-generating facilities. The project would be consistent with the existing zoning.

2.1-3 Chapter 2.1: Land Use, Zoning, Jamaica Bay and Neighborhood Character 400-Foot Study Area The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility site is consistent with zoning and would have no impact on the zoning of the 400-foot study area. Half-Mile Study Area The land within this study area is zoned R-2 and R-5 for residential use only. However, the proposed facility is consistent with the existing zoning and land use. It would have no impact on the zoning of the surrounding study area, including the Town of Hempstead in Nassau County (north side of Motts Basin). c. Neighborhood Character As discussed above the proposed facility would not have any significant adverse impacts in terms of land use or zoning. In addition, as discussed in other chapters of this environmental assessment, the proposed facility would not result in significant adverse impacts to visual resources, traffic, air quality, noise, etc. The area already has two generating facilities that are immediately adjacent to the site of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. Consequently, the proposed facility would not be expected to have any significant adverse impacts on neighborhood character.

2.1-4 2.2 Community Facilities This chapter provides an overview of community facilities located within various specified radial areas of the project site and addresses possible impacts of the proposed project on such community facilities. Three overlapping study areas were analyzed for this project. The first study area includes the proposed 2-acre project site and adjacent 3-acre temporary laydown area. The second area includes the area within a 400-foot radius of the proposed site, which encompasses the entire Jamaica Bay Facility site as well as the existing Bayswater and KeySpan sites. The third study area extends out from the 400-foot area to a radius of one- half mile 2.2.1. Existing Conditions a. Project Site There are no community facilities within or immediately adjacent to the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility (see Figure 2.2-1). b. 400-Foot Study Area The majority of this study area is within the boundaries of the existing power generation facilities and contains no community facilities. c. Half-Mile Study Area The institutional land usage in the vicinity of the existing site consists of P.S. 104 District 27 Bayswater School and Westboume Playground, Bayswater Point State Park, and Inwood Park. Other local institutional land uses include the Far Rockaway Post Office, and the Nassau County Department of Public Works, which has a local garage located across Motts Basin directly opposite the existing facility. Bayswater Point State Park provides passive recreation opportunities, such as hiking and nature study. Bayswater Point State Park is managed by the New York City Audubon Society, under a formal agreement with New York State Parks. Inwood Park, located on 16 acres, features bocci, shuffleboard, horseshoes, basketball, a softball/Little League field, football, and an outdoor roller rink. In addition, Inwood Park has saltwater fishing, crabbing, and a launch ramp. A picnic area is also available. Nassau County administers the park. 2.2.2. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project a. Project Site There are no community facilities located within the project site study area, and consequently the project would not have any adverse impacts on any community facilities on this area.

2.2-1 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.2: Community Facilities b. 400-Foot Study Area There are no community facilities located within the 400-foot study area, and consequently the project would not have any adverse impacts on any community facilities on this area. c. Half-Mile Study Area The institutional land use within a half-mile of the existing site consists of P.S. 104 District 27 Bayswater School and Westboume Playground, Bayswater Point State Park, and Inwood Park. Other local institutional land uses include the Nassau County Department of Public Works, which has a local garage located across Motts Basin directly opposite the existing facility. The direct impact of the project would not affect land use outside of the project site. From a secondary impact perspective, land use in the area around the site is not expected to change because 1) no significant adverse air quality, noise, visual, or other impacts have been identified; and 2) the project site has been used for power generation since at least 1953 and a power company has occupied the project area since 1912. This demonstrates that power generation on the project site and surrounding residential and community facilities are compatible.

2.2-2 2.3 Historic Resources

2.3.1. Methodology

The purpose of this chapter is to determine if the project could potentially affect historic resources in the vicinity of the project area and/or on the project site. The review process for historic resources included verbal and written communication with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), in order to identify any historic resources within a one-half mile radius from the site, (see Appendix D, "Agency Correspondence") The New York City Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) was also contacted and a landmark review was requested for this area. A preliminary review was conducted on the LPC website, and no landmarks were identified within the vicinity of the project site. 2.3.2. Existing Conditions a. Historic Resources As part of the environmental review process for the Bayswater Facility, OPRHP had issued a letter of No Significant Impact for cultural or historic resources for the entire LIP A site, including the site of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. On October 10, 2002 OPRHP was contacted and requested to update its letter of determination and identify any known historic resources on the proposed facility site, defined as the 2-acre project site and 3-acre temporary laydown area, or in the project area that might be impacted by the proposed facility. The proposed study area is shown on Figure 1-1, which includes the 23-acre area owned by KeySpan. 2.3.3. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project a. Historic Resources No historic resources were identified within the proposed facility site. Furthermore, the proposed site area would be entirely within an open area located to the west of the existing power plant and would not require the removal or disturbance of any existing structures within the project site or surrounding project area. The proposed project would not significantly affect the viewscape of adjacent buildings and structures, due to the industrial history of the project site and project area. On October 15, 2002, Greg D'Onofrio of the OPRHP reviewed the historic resource files and determined that the project would have no effect on federal, state, or local listed historic structures on site or in the vicinity of the project area (see Appendix D, "Agency Correspondence"). Therefore, no physical or contextual impacts to historic resources due to construction, operation or associated site activities are anticipated.

2.3-1 2.4 Archaeological Resources

2.4.1. Methodology

The purpose of this chapter is to identify any potential archaeological concerns regarding the construction and operation of the proposed facility. A review of the existing conditions and land use history of the proposed site and surrounding area was conducted. Research regarding potential archaeological resources was conducted through several methods including: • Archeological resources review by Douglas Mackey of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP); • Examination of Sanbom maps and aerial photographs; • Site visits and photo documentation; and • Project area review by Alan Bauder of the NY Office of General Services, to confirm past areas of filling activities pursuant to Underwater Land Grants. Collected information was used to estimate the extent of historical subsurface impacts, identify any undisturbed resources, assess potential impacts of proposed construction activities to any identified archaeological resources, and if necessary make recommendations for further evaluation. 2.4.2. Existing Conditions

The study project area is shown on Figures 1-1 through 1-3. Review of aerial photographs from 1954 to 1994 and Sanbom Maps from 1895 to 1996 has generally shown continuous development and activity within the proposed site and surrounding areas. More specifically, the northern adjacent portion of the site is composed of a developed bulkhead facility and fill that was placed sometime prior to 1912. The site contains some fill from this area. Given the highly disturbed and developed nature of the site there is extremely limited potential for any archaeological or pre-historic finds during construction activities. Furthermore, the proposed site has been in continuous industrial use since its development prior to 1895. The Sanbom map review indicated that portions of the KeySpan site area, mainly in the southwestern and southeastem sections, had been developed for residential use from 1912 until at least 1996. The Sanbom maps also indicated that residential homes were located in the eastern side of the site as early as 1895. In addition, a power company has occupied the northeastern corridor of the project area since 1912. As a result, there has been continuous development activity on the site for an extensive period of time. The aerial photographs confirmed this determination by showing buildings and roads as well as continuous clear, grading, and earth movement throughout the site. The Sanbom maps and aerial photographs also indicate various manipulations and filling of Bayswater Channel. A preliminary search was conducted on the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) web site and no landmarks were identified.

2.4-1 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.4: Archaeological Resources

2.4.3. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project Reviews of historic aerial photographs and Sanbom maps have indicated that the proposed facility site and project area are within an area that has been continuously developed and has undergone extensive disturbance for the past 100 years. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts with respect to archeological resources would be expected due to the proposed facility.

2.4-2 2.5 Visual Resources

2.5.1. Methodology A preliminary review of the area surrounding proposed project site was conducted to identify viewing points ^that may be visually impacted by the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. Viewing points, defined as locations or observation points at which viewers may have an expectation of high visual quality, were identified by utilizing local street maps, historical aerial photographs, and municipal and county listings of community and local facilities. The potential for National Register Sites, federal and state natural areas, and federal and state park properties to be visually impacted was determined. Field surveys of the project area and the immediate vicinity were conducted on February 14 and March 2, 2001 and October 11 and 19, 2002. The information collected from the preliminary review and site visit was used to evaluate the visual character of the project site and surrounding area within a one-mile radius as well as to assess the effects of the proposed facility on the existing visual quality of the site and project area. 2.5.2. Existing Conditions a. Project Site At present, the proposed 2-acre project site is within a vacant area that includes the Bayswater facility (see Figure 1-1). The adjacent 3-acre temporary laydown area is currently grassed and would not be disturbed. The western boundary of the proposed site is the 100- to 130-foot vegetated buffer. This buffer is part of a 100-foot setback as agreed to by the KeySpan Far Rockaway Generating Facility. The 100-foot setback is not part of the 2-acre project site and would not be impacted by any proposed site activities. The topography of the area is level. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would be constructed within the security-fenced area associated with the Bayswater facility. Additional security fencing would be installed to separate the Jamaica Bay and Bayswater facilities. The 110-foot stacks of the proposed facility would be much less prominent than the 266-foot stack of the KeySpan facility, and comparable in height to the 110-foot stack at the Bayswater facility. The proposed facility would include a 40-foot high, 300,000-gallon oil storage tank. This tank would be located in the interior portion of the site and screened from adjacent residences by the 100-foot vegetated buffer located on Bay 28th Street and Sunnyside Avenue. Ah additional vegetated buffer is planned for Mott Avenue (the southern boundary of the facility) by the Long Island Power Authority. This will further screen the facility from residences to the south. b. Project Area The immediate project area, defined as the 23-acre area owned by KeySpan (Figure 1-1) comprises the Bayswater facility, the KeySpan facility, Motts Basin, and the proposed the Jamaica Bay Facility. The project area has been in continuous industrial use for over 100 years. There are no viewing points within the immediate vicinity of the project area.

2.5-1 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.5: Visual Resources c. One-Mile Study Area Land uses within a one-mile radius around the proposed site location include residential and commercial areas to the west, south, and east. Motts Basin forms the northern site boundary. The northern portion of the one-mile radius across from Motts Basin includes a portion of Nassau County and a mixture of residential and recreational land uses and one public school playground. Nine viewing points (seven recreational areas and two institutions) were identified during preliminary review. The receptors were defined as locations or observation points at which viewers may have an expectation of high visual quality. Table 2.5-1 provides a list of the identified viewing points, their location, and distance from the site, as well as field observations noted during the site visits. Figure 2.5-1 shows the locations of visual site lines used in the assessment. 2.5.3. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project - Figures 2.5-2 through 2.5-10 show photographs of taken from the nine viewing points listed in Table 2.5-1 with and without the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. As discussed below, these photosimulations show that due to site location and shielding provided by the 100- to 130-foot buffer of trees around the site, and the presence of the adjacent 266- foot tall KeySpan facility stack and the 110-foot tall Bayswater facility stack, the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would not have a significant adverse visual impact. The site location for the proposed project was selected in order to preserve the existing 100-foot vegetated setback buffer zone along Sunnyside Street and Bay 28th Street, which would act as a screen for the residences located across Mott Avenue as well as for Westboume Playground (at Mott Avenue and Bay 25th Street). A limited number of trees that encroach into the project site area would be removed but vegetation within the 100- foot setback area would remain. The proposed project includes additional tree plantings, landscaping, and other screening measures to enhance the buffer area. The majority of the project's components would be 40 feet high or less with the exception of the emission stack. The stack would be the project's most visible feature at approximately 110 feet high. In comparison, the KeySpan facility, which has been part of the viewscape for nearly 50 years, has a 266-foot tall stack. The newly constructed Bayswater facility's 110-foot stack is comparable to the stack height of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. The Jamaica Bay Facility would also include a 40-foot high 300,000-gallon oil tank. This would be screened by the 100-foot vegetated setback buffer to the south and west and by the Bayswater facility to the north. The overall footprint size of the Jamaica Bay generating unit would be smaller than the adjacent Bayswater generating unit. The Bayswater unit is elongated due to a crossing need over the underground discharge cooling water pipe from the KeySpan facility.

2.5-2 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.5: Visual Resources

^ Table 2.5-1: Viewing Points ^^P Figure Recreation Areas Distance/ Location Field Observations No. (Responsible Agency) Direction

2.5-2 Gateway National Recreation Approx. 0.25 Offshore The KeySpan facility stack is Area, including the Jamaica to 3 miles within visible in the distance from Bay National Wildlife Refuge west Jamaica Bay portions of the Cross Bay (National Park Service, Boulevard; however, most views United States Fish and of the proposed facility site from Wildlife Service) the Cross Bay Boulevard are blocked by an elevated rail corridor and trees/vegetation. In addition, it is not likely that the smaller Jamaica Bay Facility would be visible. The facility site may be visible from some water- based locations within Jamaica Bay. 2.5-3 Bayswater Point State Park Approx. 0.5 Bayswater Existing residential and other (New York State Division of miles west urban structures block almost all Parks, Recreation and views between the project site Historic Preservation) and Bayswater Point State Park. The top portion of the KeySpan stack is visible from a small portion of the park, but the smaller Jamaica Bay stack would not be visible. 2.5-4 Bayswater Park Approx. 0.75 Bayswater Only the top portion of the (New York City Parks and miles west/ KeySpan facility stack is visible Recreation Office, Queens southwest from this location. The Jamaica County) Bay site and stack would not be • visible. 2.5-5 Inwood Park Approx. 0.3 Inwood This park is located across Motts (Nassau County Parks and miles north Basin from the site. The Recreation Office) 49-year-old existing KeySpan Generating Facility forms a dominant visual feature of the park's boat launching facility. The proposed facility location would be visible from behind the existing facility. 2.5-6 Inwood Country Club Approx. 0.5 Inwood Portions of the existing facilities miles north are visible from the club entrance and possibly from other club locations. The proposed facility would most likely be obscured by the Bayswater Peaking Facility from locations within the county club. Only a portion of the views from the club Includes the proposed site and some of this view may be screened by mature trees on the club grounds. 2.5-7 Westboume Playground Approx. 0.25 Far Only the top portion of the (P.S. 104 District 27- miles Rockaway KeySpan facility stack is visible Bayswater School) southwest from this location. The Jamaica Bay site and stack would not be visible.

2.5-3 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.5: Visual Resources

Table 2.5-1: Viewing Points Figure Recreation Areas Distance/ Location Field Observations No. (Responsible Agency) Direction

2.5-8 Rockaway Community Park Approx. 0.75 Sommerville The proposed project site is a (New York City Parks and miles distant visual element from the Recreation Office, Queens southwest park. Most views from the park County) are screened by the Edgemere Landfill, which occupies the northern part of a peninsula into Jamaica Bay. Institutions 2.5-9 US Post Office Approx. 0.5 Far Only the top portion of the miles Rockaway KeySpan facility stack is visible southeast from this location. The Jamaica Bay site is not visible. 2.5-10 Sage Memorial Church Approx. 0.8 Far Not visible from this site. miles east . Rockaway

Due to the large size of the KeySpan facility relative to the proposed facility (2-acre footprint vs. 3-acre footprint), as well as the similarly sized Bayswater facility, the visual exposure from the proposed facility would be partially obscured by the two existing facilities. The line of vision to the project site and proposed facility from the surrounding viewing points is either obscured or dominated by the existing and larger Key Span facility and the comparable Bayswater facility. The proposed facility would not significantly impact the existing visual context of the project area. The proposed facility would also be painted in a neutral gray color, similar to the Bayswater facility, thereby minimizing potential impacts. The existing KeySpan facility would partially screen the views of the proposed project area from the residential and commercial properties to the east. Residential properties to the west would also not be significantly impacted as shown in the photo simulations of the project area. Also, the planned inclusion of additional landscaping and tree plantings will minimize the ability to see the proposed facility and minimize the project's visual effects. A photo simulation of the view from Sunnyside Street is shown on Figure 2.5-11. The proposed facility would be partially visible from Inwood Park and, to a lesser extent, Inwood Country Club, but it will be partially screened by, and would blend in with, the existing KeySpan and Bayswater facilities. The view of the proposed facility is not considered an impact to Inwood Park and Inwood Country Club because of the already dominant view of the larger KeySpan facility and its associated transmission towers. The proposed facility would be a distant visual element to views from Gateway National Recreation Area and Rockaway Community Park, and other structures and vegetation would screen most views. The view of the proposed facility would not have a significant adverse impact to Gateway National Recreation Area or Rockaway Community Park because of both the distance and the more dominant view of the KeySpan facility. Based upon the above, the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would not have a significant adverse visual impact.

2.5-4 2.6 Environmental Justice

2.6.1. Introduction Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations was issued by President Clinton on February 11,1994. The purpose of the order is to avoid the disproportionate placement of any adverse environmental, economic, social or health impacts from federal actions and policies on minority and low-income communities. The order requires that impacts on minority or low-income populations be taken into account when preparing environmental and socioeconomic analyses of projects or programs that are proposed, funded, or licensed by federal agencies. This Environmental Justice assessment is not a required part of the SEQR filing, but is included for informational purposes.1 2.6.2. Existing Conditions Far Rockaway is one of thirteen communities in the Queens Community District 14, which consists of the Rockaway Peninsula and Broad Channel, and it is located at the eastern end of the peninsula, close to the Nassau County line. The 11-mile-long peninsula has 7.5 miles of beaches, including the Gateway National Recreation Area, which are recreational destinations for up to 200,000 outside visitors on peak days, as well as year- round resources for local residents. Queens Community District 14 is ethnically and economically diverse and has been described as a microcosm of New York City. Some of the neighborhoods on the far eastern and western portions of the Rockaway Peninsula contain relatively affluent, one- or two-family dwellings, while other neighborhoods contain large areas of public housing. Average household income in this area compares favorably to Queens as a whole, but unemployment among youth is high. Community Board No. 14 favors economic development and enhanced public services that are most likely to attract and retain working-class families. To provide a baseline for assessing any such impacts of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility, Table 2.6-1 presents 2000 Census statistics on the race, ethnicity, and poverty status of the population in the Census block groups surrounding the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. The census tracts within a Va-mile radius of the site are shown on Figure 2.6-1, and comprise the "community of concern." A "community of concern" is defined by New York Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) Draft Environmental Justice and Permitting Policy, dated August 7, 2000, as the geographical area and population significantly affected by potential significant adverse environmental impacts to the proposed action. Statistics for the surrounding jurisdiction of Queens County are presented to provide context.

1 This analysis has been prepared consistent with the following guidance: NYSDEC's Draft Environmental Justice and Permitting Policy, dated August 7, 2002, Recommendations for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Environmental Justice Program, dated January 2, 2002, and EPA Region 2's Interim Environmental Justice Policy, dated December 2000.

2.6-1 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.6: Environmental Justice

i^. Table 2.6-1: Environmental Justice Statistics For Jamaica Bay In Far Rockaway Adjacent to Facility | W West Side East Side North of % Mile Queens (e) Facility (f) Radius (g) County (h) Land Area (square 0.41 0.16 0.68 1.25 109,711 miles) Total Persons 4,008 7,524 1,194 12,726 2,229,379 White (non-Hispanic) 26% 6% 65% 18% 33% Black 48% 62% 0% 52% 19% American Indian (a) 0% 1% 0% 1% <1% Asian (b) 5% 1% 8% 3% 18% Other Race (c) 9% 6% 2% 7% 5% Hispanic Origin (d) 13% 23% 24% 20% 25% Poverty Rate (0 16% 29% 13% 23% 15% Total Households 1,126 2,292 422 3,840 817,250 Median Household $52,368 $28,128 $50,625 $43,726 $42,439 Income Households with 23% 17% 34% 21% 25% Social Security Income Households with 8% 16% 3% 12% 4% Public Assistance Income Notes: a. Includes Alaskan native ^^ b. Includes Pacific Islander VV c. Includes population designating two or more races d. Hispanic origin refers to ethnicity and language, not race, however, for this analysis, such individuals are not also included in other racial categories. e. The east side is directly adjacent to the KeySpan Far Rockaway Plnat which is east of the Jamaica Bay site. The adjacent area is the 2000 Census block groups surrounding the Jamaica Bay, property, roughly 14 mile on each side except for the north side (water). Three block groups are on the west/southwest of the property (FIPS code 36-081-1008-1, 2 and 3) and two block groups are on the east/southeast of the property (FIPS code 36-081-1008-5 and 36-081-1032.01-1). A block group is a subset of a Census tract. f. Area immediately north of the facility is the 2000 Census block group (FIPS code 36-059-4110-5), approximately Vi mile north on the other side of Motts Basin and the New York City boundary, in Nassau County g. The 1/2 mile radius consists of the combination of the west side, east side, and north of the facility. The census block groups that make up the Vi mile radius are the same ones that makeup the west side, east side, and north of the facility. h. Queens County statistics are provided for comparison. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 summary file 3 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/ 36/36081 .html and http://factfinder.census.gov)

The Draft Environmental Justice and Permitting Policy, dated August 7, 2002 (NYDEC, 2002) defines the term "minority population" as a group of individuals that are identified or recognized as African-American, Asian-American and Pacific Islander, American Indian or Hispanic. (Hispanic refers to ethnicity and language, not race, and may include people whose heritage is Puerto Rican, Cuban, Mexican and Central or South American.) ^^ A "minority community" exists where a census block group, or area with multiple census

2.6-2 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.6: Environmental Justice block groups, has a minority population equal or greater than 48.5 percent in urban areas and 33.5 percent in rural areas (NYSDEC, 2002). The area surrounding the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility meets NYSDEC's definition of an urban area. NYSDEC defines "low-income population" as a group of individuals having an annual income that is less than the poverty threshold established by the U.S. Census Bureau. A "low-income community," is a census block group, or area with multiple census block groups, having a low-income population equal to or greater than 24.8 percent of the total population (NYSDEC, 2002). As Table 2.6-1 shows, the socioeconomic characteristics of the neighborhoods on either side of the project site differ considerably. Those to the east of the project site have median household incomes that meet the definition of a low-income community, while those on the west and north side do not meet the definition of a low-income community. Both of the communities east and west of the facility meet the definition of a minority community, but the percent minority population in the neighborhoods to the east of the property is much higher than in the neighborhoods to the west. Overall, the area within a Vi-mile radius of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility does not meet NYSDEC's definition of a low-income area. The median household income is roughly equal to Queens County. The area within a Vi-mile radius meets NYSDEC's definition of a minority community. Eighty-two percent of this community is minority. a. Area Toxic Inventory A Toxic Computerized Environmental Report (TCER) was conducted for 1425 Bay 24th Street, Far Rockaway, NY 11691, the project site, to evaluate the active and closed toxic sites within the project site, from the project site extending out a radius of Vi-mile, a radius of 54-mile and a radius of one mile (Figures 2.6-2 through 2.6-4). The report provides a summary of government-reported toxic sites identified in environmental database searches for the target site. The identified hazardous waste sites are characterized in the report under several categories including NYS toxic spills and NYS toxic release inventory facilities (TRIS). Review of the report has identified sixty-one NY spills and no TRIS facilities within a half-mile radius of the project site. No Emergency Response Notification Systems (ERNS) sites were located within 100 feet of the site. A comparison of the identified air discharge permits within Queens County and a one-mile radius of the proj ect site revealed: • 1,134 total air permits in Queens County; • 31 total permits within 1-mile radius of the project site; and • Three of the county-wide permits are associated with facilities within a one-mile radius of the project site. Project Site The existing KeySpan Far Rockaway Generating Facility and Bayswater Peaking Facility were, however, identified as air discharge sites. The KeySpan Far Rockaway Generating

2.6-3 Jamaica Bay ' Chapter 2.6: Environmental Justice

Facility is currently operating in compliance with its Title V Permit. The Bayswater facility is currently operating in compliance with its State Facility Permit. Quarter-Mile Study Area With the exception of the Bayswater and KeySpan facilities, no air discharges were identified within a quarter-mile radius of the project site. The NY spills database identified twenty-three spills located within the quarter-mile radius of the project site. The majority of these spills were associated with the KeySpan Energy facility. Half-Mile Study Area Eight facilities with associated air discharges were identified within a half-mile radius of the project site. These facilities include several dry cleaning operations, apartment building boilers, and various industrial activities. 2.6.3. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project Once the presence of a low-income or minority community has been documented, NYSDEC guidance on environmental justice defines two steps to determine of potential environmental impacts are likely to adversely affect communities of concern. The steps are: 1) Identify potential environmental impacts; and 2) Determine whether impacts are likely to adversely affect a minority or low-income community. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility are identified and assessed in this document. As described in this Environmental Assessment, none of the potential adverse environmental impacts would be significant. In particular; Air Quality: The air quality analysis presented in Chapter 2.8 of this Environmental Assessment shows that emissions from the Jamaica Bay Facility would be below major source thresholds, concentrations would be below EPA identified significance levels, and total pollutant concentrations would be well below applicable air quality standards. In additional, a cumulative air quality analysis found that the emissions from the existing KeySpan, Bayswater, and other nearby generating facilities together with the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would not exceed applicable air quality standards. Traffic: Oil is planned to be delivered to the Jamaica Bay Facility by barge. If trucks are used, approximately 8 trucks per day would be required to deliver fuel oil. According to the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual, projects generating less than 30 to 50 vehicle trips per hour, even in congested areas, are not considered a significant impact to traffic and further detailed traffic analysis is not required. Therefore, the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility is not considered a potential impact to traffic and no further analysis is required (see Chapter 2.7). Visual: The new facility would be located on the southwest comer of a large industrial parcel, adjacent to two existing power plants. The proposed facility should be visually

2.6-4 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.6; Environmental Justice

less noticeable to the surrounding residential community than the existing KeySpan facility. The components of the proposed plant are predominantly less than 40 feet and the stacks are proposed to be 110 feet high. This is significantly smaller than the KeySpan facility which currently has a 266-foot stack and comparable to the Bayswater facility which has a 110-foot stack (see Chapter 2.5). Noise: The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would not have any significant noise impacts and at all nearby residences would be in compliance with all NYC noise regulations and requirements (see Chapter 2.9). Other key impact categories that do not directly affect adjacent residents are discussed in this document. Moreover, both the area that would be served by the proposed project and the area within '/i-mile of the site, have a minority population that exceeds NYSDEC's definition of minority community. Nevertheless, there would be no significant adverse impact .from the proposed project in either area. 2.6.4. Conclusion Although a potential low-income and minority community of concern was identified within the vicinity of the proposed project, evaluation of the proposed project has not identified any significant adverse impacts on a short term or cumulative basis to low- income or minority populations. Therefore the proposed project is in accordance with the environmental justice objectives defined by NYSDEC.

2.6-5 2.7 Traffic and Transportation The purpose of this chapter is to assess any potential increase in traffic due to facility operation and maintenance. Traffic during facility construction is addressed in Chapter 2.14, "Construction." During operation and maintenance of the proposed project, there would be a limited number of vehicle trips generated by the proposed facility. Maintenance and operations for the proposed facility would be managed by two workers, who would not be present at the facility at all times. The main traffic impact associated with facility operations would be daily commutes by the two-person operational staff. During normal operation, the proposed facility would generate a maximum of two vehicle trips per hour. Periodically during maintenance, there may be as many as eight vehicle trips per hour. The preferred delivery method for the fuel oil used at the facility would be by barge. The channels through Jamaica Bay range from 12 to 23 feet deep below Mean Low Water. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a total of 795 tons of cargo transited Jamaica Bay in 2000, the latest year data are available. Of the 795 tons, 423 tons were petroleum products and entailed 293 round trips of vessels. This level of traffic is far less than could be supported and indicates that the channels are underutilized. It is estimated that there would be a maximum of one barge delivery per week. This level of barge traffic, about 50 round trips per year, would have minimal impact on Jamaica Bay maritime traffic. When barge delivery of oil is not feasible or emergency conditions require it, truck delivery of oil may be required as an alternative. Any truck deliveries are expected to occur during weekday daytime hours. It is proposed that oil delivery trucks use the normal traffic route to the Keyspan Plant and facility site, which is from the east via Mott Avenue. However, FPLE would meet with the community to discuss the appropriate route and schedule (for example, schedule to avoid school opening and closing times). The facility would be capable of unloading one truck at a time with a maximum of two truck trips per hour. If truck delivery is utilized, it is estimated that eight trucks per day would be required during peak plant operation. The only other planned material delivery to the site during operation of the proposed facility would be aqueous ammonia (less than 20 percent concentration) for use in the selective catalytic reduction system for controlling nitrogen oxide emissions. It is estimated that aqueous ammonia would be delivered to the site once per month. According to the New York City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual, projects generating less than 30 to 50 vehicle trips per hour, even in congested areas, are not considered to have the potential for causing significant traffic impacts and consequently, for such projects further detailed traffic analysis is not required. Therefore, the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility is not considered to have the potential for causing a significant adverse traffic impact and no further analysis is required.

2.7-1 2.8 Air Quality

2.8.1. Introduction This analysis examines the air quality effects of operation of the simple cycle Pratt & Whitney Model FT8 Swift Pac to be sited at the proposed facility. 2.8.2. Permitting Requirements The proposed facility would have a nominal capacity of 54 megawatts (MW). The facility would limit its annual emissions to qualify as a minor source and would be permitted as a minor source. Non-Attainment New Source Review (NSR) and review for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) would not apply to the proposed facility. 2.8.3. Facility Design The Jamaica Bay Facility would consiist of a simple-cycle Pratt & Whitney Model FT8 Swift Pac (i.e., two combustion turbines) with a nominal capacity of 54 MW and a heat input of approximately 594 million British Thermal Units per hour (MMBtu/hr) at an average ambient temperature of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (0F) and 60 percent relative humidity at mean sea level. The combustion turbines would utilize either distillate oil or natural gas. Maximum fuel consumption is estimated to be approximately 13,800,000 gallons per year combusting distillate oil exclusively and 4,744 million cubic feet per year combusting natural gas exclusively (based on an average ambient temperature of 59° F). Emissions from the combustion turbines exhaust through a single 110-foot stack, which is less than the GEP stack height based on the KeySpan generating plant, which is the controlling structure. The stack has an inside equivalent exit diameter of 15 feet which provides for a maximum exit velocity of 77.7 feet per second at an exit temperature of 870° F based on an average ambient temperature of 59° F. A site layout is presented in Figures 2.8-1 and 2.8-2, providing an elevation drawing of the FT8 Swift-Pac. Each combustion turbine would operate at 100 percent load capacity other than during startup and shutdown. However, each turbine can be operated independently of the other. 2.8.4. Emission Quantities and Stack Parameters Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) would be controlled through the use of water injection and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to 2.5 parts per million dry volume (ppm) at 15 percent oxygen (O2) while firing natural gas and 6.0 ppm (@15 percent O2) while firing low sulfur (0.05 percent) distillate oil. By limiting annual distillate fuel use, potential emissions of NOx would be limited to less than 25 tons per year (i.e., 22.5 tons per year). Emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) would be controlled with an oxidation catalyst. Under worst case ambient conditions, CO levels would be controlled to 12.6 ppm (@15 percent O2) and 2.8 ppm (@15 percent O2) for natural gas and distillate oil combustion, respectively. As a secondary benefit, the oxidation catalyst would also reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), although no reduction has been accounted for in the emission estimates.

2.8-1 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality

^^ Turbine performance, stack and emissions data are presented in Table 2.8-1 (Natural Gas) flB and Table 2.8-2 (Distillate Oil) for the full range of operating conditions. Note that emission estimates of particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PMio) are based on vendor data for filterable and condensable fractions. In addition, estimated in- stack formation of ammonium sulfate has been included in the PMio total. Table 2.8-1: Performance, Stack and Emissions Data for the Pratt & Whitney FT8 Swift-Pac Combustion Turbine Firing Natural Gas Performance and Stack Data (both turbines) Ambient Temp. (0F) -5 32 59 912 1042 Gross Power Output (kW) 60,870 60,696 57,310 52,634 49,850 Gross Heat Rate based on LHV (Btu/kWh) 9,090 9,246 9,345 9,586 9,773 Stack Exhaust Fiow (ACFM) 827,913 843,240 823,925 793,712 776,075 Stack Temp. (0F) 763 839 870 754 764 Emissions Data (both turbines) 1 NOx(ppm ) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 NOx (pound/hr) 5.7 5.7 5.5. 5.2 5.0 CO (ppm1) 12.6 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 CO (pound/hr) 17.4 11.2 10.7 10.0 9.7 SO2 (pounds per hour) 1.7 1.73 1.65 1.55 1.5 VOC (ppm1) 10.7 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 VOC (pound/hr) 8.4 4.79 4.57 4.31 4.16 PM10 (Fliterabie and Condensable) 12.88 12.89 12.85 12.80 12.77 (pound/hr) ^^k Ammonia (ppm1) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 ^^ Ammonia (pound/hr) 8.36 8.48 8.09 7.62 7.36 1 Referenced to 15 percent O2 2 Assumes operation of evaporative cooier

The SCR and oxidation catalyst system would reduce NOx and CO emissions by over 90 percent. The SCR system proposed would reliably control emissions of NOx to a level of approximately 2.5 ppm while firing natural gas and 6.0 ppm while firing distillate oil. The SCR system uses the common reagent, aqueous ammonia. In the presence of a

catalyst, the ammonia reacts with NOx to form N2 and H2O. The ammonia is provided as a 17.5 to 19.5 percent aqueous (water based) solution. 2.8.5. Attainment Status and Compliance With Air Quality Standards

The 1970 Clean Air Act was enacted by Congress to protect the health and welfare of the public from the adverse effects of air pollution. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria pollutants. The U.S. EPA has promulgated NAAQS for six air contaminants (criteria pollutants) for protection against adverse impacts to public health and welfare. These same standards have been adopted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and are specified in 6 NYCRR Part 257. These criteria pollutants are nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate

•

2.8-2 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality

Table 2.8-2: Performance, Stack and Emissions Data for the Pratt & Whitney FT8 Swift-Pac Combustion Turbine Firing Distillate Oil Performance and Stack Data (both turbines) 2 2 Ambient Temp. (0F) -5 32 59 91 100 Gross Power Output (kW) 54,580 54,720 54,834 52,634 47,584 Gross Heat Rate based on LHV (Btu/kWh) 9,214 9,391 9,537 9,847 10,032 Stack Exhaust Flow (ACFM) 769,130 786,056 799,056 770,576 754,019 Stack Temp. (0F) 723 802 862 899 916 Emissions Data (both turbines) NCUppm1) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 NO, (pound/hr) 13.0 13.3 13.5 12.8 12.4 CG(ppm1) 2.8 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 CG (pound/hr) 3.7 2.7 2.2 2.1 2.0 SG2 (pounds per hour) 28.2 28.8 29.3 27.7 26.8 VGC (ppm1) 9.0 8.0 8.0, 8.0 8.0 VGC (pound/hr) ' 6.8 6.2 6.3 5.9 5.7 PM10 (Filterable and Condensable) (pound/hr) 44.72 44.91 45.07 44.56 44.28 Ammonia (ppm1) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Ammonia (pound/hr) 8.02 8.19 8.34 7.87 7.61 1 Referenced to 15 percent O2 2 Assumes operation of evaporative cooler matter (PM2.5 and PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), and lead (Pb). These same standards, with the exception of PM2.5, have been adopted by NYSDEC and are specified in 6 NYCRR Part 257. A standard for PM2.5 has yet to be promulgated (See PM2.5 discussion). The NAAQS are listed in Table 2.8-3. To identify those new sources with the potential to significantly affect ambient air quality, the U.S. EPA and NYSDEC have adopted Significant Impact Levels (SILs) for the contaminants with ambient air quality standards. These SILs are listed in Table 2.8-3. The U.S. EPA and NYSDEC consider maximum predicted impacts below the SILs to be insignificant. The U.S. EPA has classified areas of the country as either "attainment," "non-attainment" or "unclassified" with respect to ambient air quality standards. The project would be located in Far Rockaway, Queens, New York, which is designated "attainment'' or "unclassified" for CO, SO2, PM10, and lead. The area is designated "severe non- attainment" for ozone. a. Non-attainment New Source Review (NSR) In non-attainment areas, new major sources are required to meet the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) for all applicable pollutants and obtain emission offsets for the subject pollutant(s). The requirements of non-attainment NSR for facilities are specified in 6 NYCRR Part 231. The project is located in a severe ozone non-attainment area and is subject to non-attainment NSR if potential emissions of NOx and/or VOC equal or exceed

2.8-3 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality

Table 2.8-3: National Ambient Air Quality Standard s 3 NAAQS (ng/m ) Significant Impact Level 3 Pollutant Averaging Period Primary Secondary (ng/m ) NOz Annual1 100 Same 1 1 so2 Annual 80 None 1 24-hour2 365 None 5 3-hour2 None 1,300 25 PM10 Annual4 50 Same 1 24-hour3 150 > Same 5 CO 8-hour2 10,000 Same 500 1-hour2 40,000 Same 2,000 3 03 1-hour 235 Same N/A Pb 3-month1 1.5 Same N/A Notes: 1 Not to be exceeded. 2 Not to be exceeded more than once per year. 3 Not to be exceeded more than an average of one day per year over three years. 4 Not to be exceeded by the arithmetic average of the annual arithmetic averages from three successive years. Source: 40 CFR 50 and 6 NYCRR 257.

25 tons (each). Project potential emissions of NOx and VOC are 22.5 tons per year (tpy), and 18.8 tpy, respectively at a reference temperature of 59° F. Since, for NSR purposes, this facility is being considered as a modification to the exiting Bayswater Peaking Facility, which is also a minor source, the Jamaica Bay facility is not subject to New York's non-attainment NSR program pursuant to 6 NYCRR 231-2.2(a)(3). b. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Potential to Emit PSD review is a federally mandated program for pre-construction review of new major sources of criteria pollutants or major modifications to existing sources. Table 2.8-4 presents maximum potential emissions for the proposed facility. To ensure that NOx emissions do not exceed 22.5 tpy, operating restrictions would be implemented in the air permit. Potential emissions from the project are less than major source thresholds. Therefore, PSD review does not apply to the project. c. Other Applicable Federal and New York State Regulations In addition to the permitting requirements for new facilities identified above, the following regulations would be applicable to the proposed project: U.S. EPA Reeulations

• 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart GG—Standards of Performance for Stationary Gas Turbines • 40 CFR Parts 72 and 75—Acid Rain Provisions (Title IV Sulfur Dioxide Allowances and Monitoring)

2.8-4 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality

Table 2.8-4: Comparison of Potential Emissions with Non-Attainment/ PSD NSR Major Source Thresholds Pollutant Project Maximum Potential Non-Attainment or PSD Major Source Emissions (tpy)1 Threshold (tpy) NO, 22.5 25 CO 43.8 2502 voc 18.8 25 PM 107.01 250 PK/U 107.01 250

S02 69.60 250 Sulfuric Add Mist 21.32 250 Emissions based on an ambient temperature 590F. NO, emissions based on an annual operating limit to maintain minor source status. Emissions of remaining pollutants conservatively assume that NO, emissions are controlled below the SCR vendor guarantee of 6.0 ppm when buming oil, which could result in increased operating hours. U.S. EPA has recently redesignated Queens County as attainment for CO. PM and PMio emissions based on total filterable and condensable particulate matter, including partial in-stack ammonium sulfate formation.

NYSDEC Reeulations

6 NYCRR Part 200—General Provisions 6 NYCRR Part 201—Permits and Registrations 6 NYCRR Part 202—Emissions Verification 6 NYCRR Part 204—NOx Budget Trading Program 6 NYCRR Part 207—Control Measures For An Air Pollution Episode 6 NYCRR Part 211—General Prohibitions 6 NYCRR Part 225—Fuel Composition and Use 6 NYCRR Part 227—Stationary Combustion Installations 2.8.6. Air Quality Impact Analysis The air quality impact analysis was conducted to assess the potential impact on air quality of emissions from the proposed facility. Criteria pollutant emissions were modeled for comparison to ambient air quality standards and the corresponding SILs. Both screening level and refined modeling analyses were conducted. The air quality modeling was conducted in accordance with an approved protocol from NYSDEC. a. Land Use Analysis The U.S. EPA recommended procedure in The Guideline on Air Quality Models (U.S. EPA, 1997) was followed to determine urban/rural classification using the Auer (1978) land use procedure. This procedure involved determining the percentages of various industrial, commercial, residential, and agricultural/natural areas within a three kilometer radius circle centered on the proposed site. If the land use types II, 12, Cl, R2, and R3 account for 50 percent or more of the area, then urban coefficients should be used. Otherwise, rural dispersion coefficients should be used in the modeling analysis. The initial land use analysis was based on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle maps, which identify areas that have a building density that

2.8-5 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality makes individual identification impractical. The results of this analysis indicate that greater than 50 percent (54 percent) of the land classified around the facility is rural. Therefore, rural dispersion coefficients were used in the air quality modeling analysis. b. Good Engineering Stack Height The Good Engineering Practice (GEP) stack height evaluation of the facility was conducted in accordance with the U.S. EPA revised Guidelines for Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height (U.S. EPA, 1985). The formula, as defined by the U.S. EPA guidelines, for the GEP stack height is: = HGEP He + 1.5L where: HB = theheightofadjacentornearby structures, and L = the lesser dimension (height or projected width of the adjacent or nearby structures) Nearby = Within 5L of the stack from downwind (trailing edge) of the building. The emissions from the combustion turbines exhaust through a single 110-foot stack. A GEP analysis was conducted to determine the GEP formula height for the stack to account for potential downwash from nearby structures. The GEP formula was applied to each major structure associated with the facility and from the adjacent KeySpan plant. Application of the GEP formula to the structures indicates a maximum GEP formula stack height of 83.69 meters (275 feet). The boiler building on the adjacent KeySpan property is found to be the controlling structure with a building height of 43.59 meters (141 feet). The critical dimension is the projected width, 26.74 meters (87.73 feet). Since the stack height is 110 feet and is less than the GEP formula height, building downwash effects were considered in the air quality modeling of the stack. The BEE- Line software program (Version 5.12), which incorporates the U.S. EPA BPIP algorithm (Version 95086) was used to determine direction specific building dimensions for refined modeling (U.S. EPA, 1995). A building downwash cavity analysis was also performed to determine if the facility stacks could be within the aerodynamic cavity region of the nearby KeySpan facility. The cavity length associated with the existing KeySpan facility was calculated. The proposed stacks were determined to be well outside the cavity region of the KeySpan facility. In addition, the height of the proposed stack is outside the cavity region of any building associated with the proposed facility. Therefore, no aerodynamic building cavity effects are expected to affect the dispersion of stack emissions from the proposed facility. c. Dispersion Modeling Analysis The U.S. EPA approved air quality models used to conduct the analysis are the SCREEN3 and Industrial Source Complex Short Term Version 3 (ISCST3) models. The SCREEN3 model was employed to identify the worst-case condition for each pollutant. It was used to determine maximum air quality impacts for the full range of operating

2.8-6 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality conditions described in Table 2.8-1. The ISCST3 model was employed in a refined analysis to compare maximum predicted concentrations to the appropriate NAAQS and significant impact levels (SILs). The latest version of the model (02035) was used. The ISCST3 model was used to model the worst-case conditions identified for each pollutant using the SCREEN3 model. The ISCST3 model is a sequential model that calculates concentrations at each receptor for every hour in the year. The refined modeling analysis was conducted for NO2, SO2, CO, and PM10 for comparison to SILs and NAAQS. Refined modeling was also conducted for PM2.5, the results of which are discussed in Section 2.8.9. Modeled concentrations due to emissions from the source were also added to ambient background concentrations to obtain total concentrations for comparison with the NAAQS. To' estimate background pollutant levels representative of the area, monitoring data was obtained from the most recent Air Quality Data Reports (State of New York) prepared by NYSDEC and the U.S. EPA Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) database. To be conservative, the highest of the second highest short-term concentrations and the highest of the annual concentrations were selected from the monitoring data. d. Meteorological Data The meteorological data collected by4he National Weather Service (NWS) at John F. Kennedy Airport (JFK) in New York is representative of the regional meteorology of Far Rockaway in Queens County. JFK is located approximately 2 miles to the north- northwest of the project site. The surface data was combined with five years of concurrent mixing height data from the NWS upper-air observations measured at Brookhaven/Upton, New York. Brookhaven is located approximately 75 miles to the northeast of the project site. These observation sites were chosen because they are the most representative stations to the project site that have collected the necessary meteorological data required for air quality modeling. The ISCST3 model was executed using the most recent five-year data set available (1997 through 2001). The data for this period was obtained from the National Climatic Data Center's Weather Observations for both surface station and upper air observations. Hourly surface observations for 1997 thru 2001 and twice-daily mixing heights were obtained. The radiosonde upper-air sounding data were used in conjunction with the surface data to generate the morning and afternoon mixing heights using the U.S. EPA MDCHTS program (available from the U.S. EPA Technology Transfers Network SCRAM website). The U.S. EPA meteorological preprocessor, PCRAMMET (version 99169) (U.S. EPA, 1995e), was used to combine the hourly surface observations with the twice daily mixing height data to estimate the hourly PGT stability class and hourly mixing heights. PCRAMMET produces a file ready for direct input into the ISCST3 model containing hourly values of wind speed and direction, temperature, stability class, and rural and urban mixing heights.

' 2.8-7 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8; Air Quality

Any missing surface and mixing height data were substituted following the recommended approach of U.S. EPA. An anemometer height of 6.10 meters was assumed for modeling purposes. e. Receptors The terrain elevations for each receptor were obtained manually from USGS 7.5x15 minute metric quads. A total of 907 receptors comprise the grid where the highest terrain elevation within half the distance to the next closest receptor in each direction was input to the model. The concentric rings of receptors were spaced as follows: fenceline and every 100 meters from the source to 2000 meters, and every 200 meters from 2200 meters to 3000 meters. In addition, several sensitive receptor locations were modeled: the school to the southwest on Mott Avenue, the playground across the channel to the north, and the residential units to the southeast on Dickens Street. One of the residential units was modeled using a flagpole receptor at a height of 30 feet above ground level. f. Background Air Quality Modeled concentrations due to emissions from the source were added to ambient background concentrations to obtain total concentrations. These total concentrations were compared to the NAAQS. To estimate background pollutant levels representative of the area, the most recent Air Quality Data Reports (State of New York) prepared by NYS DEC were obtained from the NYSDEC website. For short-term averages (24 hours or less), the highest of the second-highest of the yearly observations were selected for the background concentration, consistent with the short-term ambient air quality standards, which are not to be exceeded more than once per year. For long-term averages, the highest yearly observations were selected as the background concentration. Background concentrations were determined from each location where available monitoring data was available for 1998 to 2000. The monitoring stations analyzed are summarized in Table 2.8-5. A summary of the background air quality concentrations is presented in Table 2.8-6. 2.8.7. Air Quality Analysis Results Table 2.8-7 presents predicted maximum refined ISCST3 modeling results for the proposed turbines compared to the corresponding SILs. All of the values (which are the highest predicted concentrations) are relatively low and well below SILs for most averaging periods. Table 2.8-8 presents refined ISCST3 modeling results for the proposed facility plus the existing Bayswater facility (with SCR) considering background for comparison to the NAAQS. The results of the ISCST3 refined modeling (which uses highest annual values, and highest 2nd highest values for short term averaging periods) demonstrate that maximum predicted concentrations are well below NAAQS for all pollutants and averaging periods. In addition, startup and shutdown emissions were evaluated.

2.8-8 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality

Table 2.8-5: Closest Available/Representative Monitoring Stations Monitoring Station Pollutant Approx imate Distance and Direction Eisenhower Park SO2 21.0 Km, NE PS321 SO2 19.4 Km, NW Queens College SO2 14.5 Km, NW Eisenhower Park PM,o 21.0 Km, NE Greenpoint PM10 20.7 Km, NW PS321 PM10 19.4 Km, NW Eisenhower Park NOx 21.0Km, NE Eisenhower Park CO 21.0Km, NE PS321 CO 19.4 Km, NW Brooklyn Transit GO 20.9 Km, NW

Table 2.8-6: Observed Ambient Air Quality Concentrations and Selected Background Levels Averaging Background Period 1998 1999 2000 Level NAAQS

NO2 (ppm) Annual 0.030 0.029. 0.028 0.030 [52.6 ng/m3] 100ng/m3 SO2 (ppm) 3-Hour 0.058 0.066 0.057 0.066 [173.0 ng/m3] 1300 ng/m3 24-Hour 0.029 0.028 0.025 0.029 [76.8 lag/m3] 365 ng/m3 Annual 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.008 [21.0 ng/m3] 80 ng/m3 CO (ppm) 1-Hour 6.4 6.2 6.2 6.4 35 ppm 8-Hour 4.1 4.5 4.3 , 4.5 9 ppm PM10 (jig/m3) 24-Hour 48 41 38 48 150ng/m3 Annual 23 15.9 17 23 50 ng/m3

Table 2.8-7: Comparison of Maximum Modeled Concentrations for Jamaica Bay Facility with Criteria Pollutant Signiflcant Impact Levels Averaging Maximum Modeled Concentration Significant Impact Level Pollutant Period (ng/m3) (ng/m3) NO2 Annual 0.002 1 SO2 3-Hour 12.3 25 24-Hour 2.5 5 Annual 0.009 1 PM10 24-Hour 4.95 5 Annual 0.014 1 CO 1-Hour 17.1 2,000 8-Hour 3.0 500 Note: Annual concentrations based on oil-firing assuming an ambient temperature of 59°F. NOx concentration based on an annual operating limit to maintain minor source status. Emissions of remaining pollutants conservatively assume that NOx emissions are controlled below the vendor guarantee of 6.0 ppm, which could result in increased operating hours.

2.8-9 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality

Table 2.8-8: Comparison of Modeled Concentrations for Jamaica Bay Facility and Bayswater Peaking Facility with Criteria Pollutant National Ambient Air Quality St andards Maximum Monitored Modeled Background Total Averaging Concentration Level Concentration NAAQS Pollutant Period (ng/m3) (ng/m3) (WJ/m3) (ng/m3) NO2 Annual 0.02 52.6 52.63 100 SO2 3-H2H 7.4 173 180.40 1,300 24-H2H 1.4 76.8 78.20 365 Annual 0.009 21 21.01 80 PM10 24-H2H 3.2 48 51.20 150 Annual 0.040 23 23.04 50 CO 1-H2H 31.8 7,192 7,223.8 40,000 8-H2H 12.2 5,220 5,232.20 10,000 Note: H2H refers to the highest second-highest concentration.

2.8.8. Assessment of Accidental Ammonia Release Aqueous ammonia (a mixture of approximately 19 percent by weight ammonium hydroxide in water) would be used in the facility's SCR system for controlling NOx emissions from the turbines. A 12,000-gallon welded steel tank would be provided for on-site storage of aqueous ammonia. The tank would be contained within a 110 percent capacity impermeable concrete or steel dike. The dike provides for secondary containment in the very unlikely event of a rupture of the ammonia storage tank. The secondary containment would be designed to minimize the exposed surface area of aqueous ammonia in the very unlikely event of a tank leak. The open interior of the dike would be filled with a layer of buoyant plastic spheres. In the very unlikely event of a spill or leak, these spheres would float on the surface of the ammonia solution, thus reducing the exposed area. Minimizing the exposed area reduces the rate of ammonia evaporation and resulting airbome concentrations in the unlikely event of a spill or leak. The proposed ammonia storage system would ensure that in the unlikely event of a spill or leak ammonia concentrations in the community would be well below levels of concern. - The consequence of spilling the entire volume (12,000 gallons) of the aqueous ammonia storage tank was evaluated. The ammonia tank is not subject to U.S. EPA's Risk Management Program for hazardous materials; however, a worst-case accidental release analysis was conducted to alleviate any potential concerns from the community in the very unlikely event of a spill or leak. To predict the worst-case consequence of the ammonia release, the HGSYSTEM model was used to estimate the distance to the ammonia toxic endpoint of 200 ppm. The toxic endpoint value of 150 ppm was obtained from the RMP and is the American Industrial Hygiene Association Emergency Response Guideline Level 2 (EPRG-2). The value represents the maximum airbome concentration below which nearly all individuals could

2.8-10 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality be exposed to for up to one hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects. The closest residential location to the ammonia tank is approximately 315 feet to the west. The results of the HGSYSTEM model demonstrate that in the unlikely event of a total tank failure the concentration of ammonia would be less than 100 ppm at the closest resident. This value is well below the ERPG-2 guideline level of 150 ppm. Therefore, no significant impact would occur in the unlikely event of a total tank failure. 2.8.9. Analysis of Potential Air Quality and Health Effects of Project-Related PM2.5 a. Introduction and Overview As discussed above, potential effects on air quality in the areas surrounding the facility were assessed through air quality modeling for sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and PMIQ. This section analyzes potential effects on air quality and public health from PM2.51 emissions as a result of operations of the two turbines. PM2.5 refers to not a single pollutant, but instead to an array of fine inhalable materials. There are, for example, thousands of forms of natural ambient PM2.5 and perhaps as many forms of man-made PM2.5. While all the disparate forms of PM2,5 can be inhaled, their toxicologic properties can differ dramatically. Some particulate matter (PM) is emitted directly to the atmosphere (i.e., primary PM), while other types of particulate matter are formed in the atmosphere through various chemical reactions and physical transformations (i.e., secondary PM). The secondary formation of PM2.5 is one determinant of ambient air quality and is, thus far, extremely difficult to model. The major constituents of PM2.5 are typically sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon (soot), ammonium, and metallic elements (not including sulfur). Secondary sulfates and nitrates are formed from their precursor gaseous pollutants, SO2 and NOx, at some distance from the source due to the time needed for the chemical conversion within the atmosphere. Elemental carbon and metallic elements are primary components, while organic carbon can be either emitted directly from a source or formed as a secondary pollutant in the atmosphere. Due to the influence of these "secondary" pollutants from distant or regional sources, regional ambient levels of PM2.5 are typically more evenly distributed than their related class of pollutants—PM10, which is more highly influenced by local sources. The expected composition of regional PM2.5 is shown in Table 2.8-9. Data from the Botanical Gardens in the Bronx, NY, and Queens College in Queens, NY, indicate that the greatest contributors to ambient PM2.5 concentrations are sulfates, and organic carbon (approximately two thirds of the total PM2.5 mass).Additional studies confirming the contribution of long range transport to ambient PM2.5 levels compare the data from New York City monitors to monitors from a remote site within the state, downwind from other states. These data show that high levels of sulfate and other

PM25 refers to particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns and is a subset of PMio-

2.8-11 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality

Table 2.8-9 PM2.5 Component Contribution Botani ;al Gardens, Queens College, Pollutant Component Bror >x, NY (%) Queens, NY {%) Sulfate 31 33 Organic Carbon 31 30 Ammonium 14 14 Nitrate 11 12 Elemental Carbon 8 6 Metallic Elements (minus Sulfur) 5 5 Source: NYSDEC, Report to the Examiners on Consolidated Edison's East River Article X Project, Case No. 99-F-1314, February, 2002. pollutants come into New York State from areas to the west and south of New York. The data also indicate that urban sites are more likely to experience increased nitrate and carbon levels than rural sites.2 Although the issue of health effects due to PM2.5 is complex, several basic facts lead to the conclusion that, as discussed below, PM2.5 impacts from this project would be insignificant. First, the turbines involved are highly efficient and operate on low sulfur oil (0.05 percent or less by weight) or natural gas. Accordingly, emissions of primary particulate matter from these turbines are very small per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated. Second, the specific types and amount of PM2.5 associated with combustion of low sulfur oil and natural gas are not known to adversely impact health, and are expected to be benign at the concentrations that would be in ambient air with the operation of the generators. This section discusses the yet-to-be implemented standard for acceptable levels of PM2.5 in ambient air adopted by the U.S. EPA. The analytical framework for the analysis of PM2.5 impacts from this project, the results of the PM2.5 air quality modeling, a discussion of secondary PM2.5, information on the composition of various forms of PM2.5, and the potential public health effects associated with the types and levels of ambient PM2.5 from this project are also discussed. Finally, the estimated increments to PM2.5 levels resulting from the project are compared with current levels of PM2.5 in ambient air in the vicinity of the project. b. The National Ambient Air Quality Standard For PM2.5 Section 108 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs the U.S. EPA to identify criteria pollutants that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. Section 109 of the CAA requires the U.S. EPA to establish NAAQS and periodically revise the NAAQS for such criteria pollutants. Primary NAAQS are mandated to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. In setting the NAAQS, U.S. EPA must account for uncertainties associated with inconclusive scientific and technical

2 NYSDEC, Report to the Examiners on Consolidated Edison's East River Article X Project, Case No. 99- F-1314, February, 2002.

2.8-12 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8; Air Quality

information and potential hazards not yet identified, and the standard must be adequate to protect the health of any sensitive group of the population. Secondary NAAQS are defined as standards that are necessary to prevent adverse impacts on public welfare such as impacts to crops, soils, water, vegetation, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate. Beginning in 1994, U.S. EPA conducted its five-year review of the NAAQS for particulate matter, which included an in-depth examination of epidemiologic and toxicologic studies. U.S. EPA also held public meetings across the nation and received over 50,000 oral and written comments regarding these studies, particularly as to whether PM2.5 is correlated with adverse health effects, and at what ambient air concentrations of PM2.5 these correlations hold. The studies are summarized in U.S. EPA's Criteria Document for Particulates, Chapters 10-13 (1996); U.S. EPA's Staff Papers on Particulates, particularly Chapter V3; and U.S. EPA's proposed NAAQS for particulates, found in the December 13, 1996 Federal Register at page 65638. Based on this extensive analysis, in June of 1997, U.S. EPA revised its NAAQS for particulate matter and adopted a new standard for PM2.5 consisting of both a long-term (annual) limit of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (^g/m3) and a short-term (24-hour) limit of 65 ng/m.4 The new standard was immediately challenged in court by a number of industry groups, and in May 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in American Trucking Assoc. Inc. v. U.S. EPA. 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999), vacated the new standard and instructed U.S. EPA to revisit the matter. In February 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals decision and remanded the case to U.S. EPA and the lower court.5 A separate decision on March 26, 2002 rejected the remaining claims that U.S. EPA's decision was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the evidence. U.S. EPA has not yet implemented the new PM2.5 standard and, as discussed below, implementation is not expected to occur until 2005 (at the earliest) because of the absence of background data and modeling techniques. Although the new PM2.5 standards were subject to litigation, PM2.5 monitoring stations were installed across the nation in the late 1990's. Ambient PM2.5 concentrations are measured on a 24-hour basis by determining the amount of particulate matter deposited on a filter that has had a known volume of airflow through it in that 24-hour period. U.S. EPA recommends sampling occur every third day, with approximately 120 samples per year. For a given area, the annual standard would be met if the three-year average of the annual arithmetic mean of the 24-hour concentrations does not exceed 15.0 |ag/m3. The monitored concentrations could be from a single monitor or from a spatial average of several population-oriented monitors. Annual averages are based on the averaging of quarterly averages, each of which must have valid observations for 75 percent of the potential samples; annual averages are rounded to the nearest 0.1 ^ig/m3. To comply with

3 Many of the studies are found on U.S. EPA's web page at http://.www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/tlsp.htnil. U.S. EPA's second and third external review draft of the PM criteria document are available on U.S. EPA's website as well. 4 62 Federal Register 38652 (July 18, 1997). 5 Whitman v. American Trucking Assoc, Inc., #531 U.S. 457 (2001).

2.8-13 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality the 24-hour standard, the three-year average of the annual 98th percentile measurement cannot exceed 65 |ag/m3 at each monitor in an area. The 98th percentile measurement for each year is the measured 24-hour concentration that is equal to or greater than 98 percent of the year's measurements. The determination of the 98th percentile concentration is a function of the number of samples obtained in that year. For example, if measurements are recorded every third day for a year and the measurements were placed in order (lowest to highest), the 118th value (120 x 0.98 = 117.6, is rounded up to 118) is taken as the 98th percentile.6 For evaluation of the 24-hour standard, measured values are rounded to the nearest |ig/m . c. Current Status of PM2.5 Regulations Even when the new PM2.5 standard was first enacted in 1997, U.S. EPA did not intend to implement the standards until 2005. Several stages of sampling, analysis, and planning must be completed as part of the full implementation program. First, U.S. EPA requires the states to measure and compile three years of ambient monitoring data in order to determine which areas are in compliance with the new standard. Second, the chemical composition of PM2.5 for areas not meeting the standard must be determined in order to evaluate possible control strategies for non-attainment areas. Third, the states then have three years to develop regulations to control PM2.5 emissions and their precursors in non- attainment areas, after which these regulations must then be approved by U.S. EPA for incorporation into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Finally, the U.S. EPA must develop modeling methods and emission factors to enable individual facilities to estimate PM2.5 emission impacts from new projects, to compare the predicted increases relative to the new standards, and to determine the effects of such increases relative to the NAAQS. Given the lack of background data on PM2.5 and the difficulties associated with modeling it, U.S. EPA has recommended that facilities continue to examine PM10 emissions from proposed projects because any analysis of PM10 will necessarily include an examination of PM2.5. Since PM2,5 is a subset of PMio, controlling emissions of PM10 will generally afford control of PM2.5 emissions as well. In addition, U.S. EPA Region 2, which includes New York, recently recommended that lead agencies conducting environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) examine PM2.5 emissions qualitatively, since a definitive quantitative analysis is not currently possible7. In this EAS, PM2.5 is examined, both qualitatively and, to the extent currently feasible, quantitatively for the project.

Methods for calculating annual average and 98th percentile concentrations are given in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR Part 50. Memorandum by John Seitz, Director of U.S. EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, October 21, 1997. See also, September 19, 2000 letter by Jeanne M. Fox, U.S. EPA Region 2 Regional Administrator, (suggesting that a qualitative discussion of increased bus and truck traffic is an appropriate analysis of PM2.5 for a new highway project because quantitative modeling tools are not currently available for examining PM2,5 emissions from mobile sources or point sources); January 7, 2002 letter by George Pavlou, Director, U.S. EPA Region 2, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, to Carl Johnson, Deputy Commissioner, NYSDEC.

2.8-14 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality d. Analytical Framework For Incremental PIVh.s Estimation

Emission Estimates

The first step in determining the impacts of the facility on PM2.5 ambient concentrations is to determine the PM2.5 emissions rates from the turbines. The ratio of PM2.5 to PM10 for an electric generating facility varies depending on the type of fuels used. Particulate emission rates for natural gas are very low, and the size distribution of particulate emissions may be almost entirely in the PMa.s range. For low sulfur fuel oil, particulate emissions are low, but the size distribution of such particulates is not entirely in the PM2.5 range.8 However, for analysis, purposes, this environmental assessment assumes that all PM10 emissions are PM2.5 emissions. In addition, the formation of ammonium sulfates from the reaction of ammonia and sulfur compounds was added to the PM10/PM2.5 emissions. While most of this conversion takes place in the ambient air (i.e., outside stack) it was conservatively assumed that 15 percent and 25 percent of the in-stack sulfur is converted to ammonium sulfate while firing distillate oil and natural gas, respectively. e. Modeling Methodology The second step in determining the potential impact of PM2.5 emissions from the facility on ambient air is to conduct air quality modeling analyses in accordance with the modeling protocol approved by the NYSDEC. Air quality impacts from PM2.5 emissions from the Pratt & Whitney FT8 Swift Pac turbines were evaluated using the same procedures described earlier in this section for the other pollutants of concern. The concentrations of PM2,5 at the maximum impacted receptor point were based on the maximum anticipated emission rates. The highest NOx and SO2 concentrations were examined, since they are precursors to the formation of secondary PM2.5. SO2 is the most significant precursor to the formation of ambient secondary PM2.5 in the Eastern portion of the United States. By burning natural gas and low sulfur fuel with a maximum sulfur content of 0.05 percent by weight, however, the facility would emit less than 70 tons per year of SO2. Thus, the impacts would be very small. f. Potential Project-Related PM2.5 Impacts Potential Maximum Increases in PM^s Concentrations Table 2.8-10 presents the results of the modeled ambient pollutant concentrations for the maximum 24-hour and annual averages for PM2.5; the maximum 3-hour, 24-hour and annual averages for SO2; and the maximum annual average for NO2 due to emissions from the facility. The maximum estimated 24-hour and annual PM2.5 levels are small relative to the respective measured background concentrations. A comparison between

8 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources (AP-42) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, (2001), Research Triangle Park, NC: Available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ chief7ap42/mdex.htinl.

2.8-15 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality

Table 2.8-10: Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations (|ig /m3) Concentration Due to Pollutant—Averaging Time Stack Emission NO2—Annual 0.002 SO2—3-Hour 12.3 SO2—24-Hour 2.5 SO2— Annual 0.009 PM2.5—24-Hour 4.95 PM2.S—Annual 0.014 the combined PM2.5 increments due to the project and background PM2.5 concentrations is provided later in this chapter. NO2 and SO2 values are presented to support the qualitative secondary PM2.5 analysis below. The maximum increases shown in Table 2.8-10 are the highest predicted PM2.5 concentration at a single point in the vicinity of the facility. The highest 24-hour PM2.5 concentration is 4.95 pg/m3. This represents approximately 7.6 percent of U.S. EPA's 24- hour PM2.5 standard of 65 pg/m3 and would, even when added to background concentrations, be well below the pending standard. The highest annual PM2.5 concentration is 0.014 pg/m3, which represent less than 0.1 percent of the annual PM2.5 standard of 15 pg/m3 and would have a negligible effect on ambient PM2.5 concentrations. These predicted local PM2.5 increments are not good indicators of ambient levels that the public may be exposed to on a continuous basis for the purposes of assessing potential public health risk. The modeling of maximum predicted concentrations is typically used to determine compliance with the NAAQS and significant impact levels in the permitting process. However, U.S. EPA has not yet determined significant impact levels for PM2.5 to be used in any future modeling analysis. g. Current Levels of PM2.5 In Ambient Air NYSDEC began monitoring ambient levels of PM2.5 at locations in the New York City Metropolitan Area in July 1999. Typically, the results of that monitoring become available for use approximately six months after the monitoring period. Currently, PM2.5 data are available through the first quarter of 2002. The air quality modeling analysis has determined that the maximum 24-hour impact for PM10 would be 4.95 pg/m3, while the annual PM10 concentration would be 0.01 pg/m3. In order to relate the modeled concentrations to the standard, the 24-hour concentration of 4.95 pg/m3 may be added to the highest second highest 2000 and 2001 recorded monitoring value of 36.7 pg/m3 (from the Hempstead—Lawrence HS monitoring site), with the total compared to the standard. The resultant total 24-hour value of 41.7 pg/m3 is well below the 24-hour PM2.5 ambient standard of 65 pg/m3. Similarly, the annual concentration of 0.014 pg/m3 may be added to the maximum 2000 and 2001 monitored annual concentration of 12.9 pg/m3. This total concentration is also below the annual PM2,5 standard of 15 pg/m3.

2.8-16 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality

These modeled incremental increases are substantially less than the typical variations measured among the NYSDEC PM2.5 monitors. Even the PM2.5 measurements taken by duplicate, co-located monitors9 frequently vary by concentrations greater than the increase in concentrations estimated to be caused by the project. Thus, predicted 24-hour and annual PM2.5 increments would result, assuming maximum permitted operation, in negligible increases to the PM2.5 ambient concentrations. h. Formation of Secondary PM2.S As mentioned earlier, some secondary particulate matter is formed when gaseous chemicals react and condense to form non-gaseous compounds within liquid aerosols or as solid particles. Within urban eastern U.S. environments, a large portion of PM2.5 is comprised of secondary particles, and the largest portion of these is of ammonium sulfate ((NH4)2S04). Of the chemicals to be released from the turbines, NOx, SO2 and ammonia are most likely to affect the formation of secondary particles. The modeling of secondary particle formation and dispersion is extremely complex. Due to the small size of the inputs from the project, and the minor contribution expected from the formation of secondary particulate to the background PM2.5 levels found in New York City, it is not currently reasonable to predict that small an increment with any precision. Therefore, a qualitative description of secondary PM2.5 impacts from the project is presented below. Three factors must be kept in mind when addressing the incremental impact of secondary particle formation caused by emissions from individual sources. First, the processes by which gases are transformed into particles depend on many factors. The chemical oxidation rates of the gases SO2 and NOx depend on the presence and behavior of low- level, short-lived, and highly reactive species such as hydroxyl radicals (OH), ozone (O3), and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Among the important chemical reactions, there are homogeneous gas-phase reactions, aqueous-phase reactions, and catalyzed heterogeneous reactions. The governing atmospheric chemistry varies over both time and space. The overall conversion rates for SO2 and NOx emitted from a specific source depends on the background concentrations of trace-level and catalytic species, sunlight, temperature, relative humidity, and many other factors. Second, because the overall conversion rates are generally on the order of a few percent per hour or lower, the secondary PM are formed at significant distances from the source of the gases, and well after the emissions have been physically dispersed. This effect is responsible for the regional, non-localized, nature of secondary PM2.5 levels. Third, only a portion of the precursor species emitted to the atmosphere is ever converted to particles. Before they form particles, the relevant gases (e.g., SO2, NOx and ammonia), and the intermediate compounds (e.g., H2SO4, and HNO3) may be removed from the atmosphere either directly (by dry deposition) or in precipitation (by wet deposition)

9 Daily PM2.5 measurements for NYSDEC monitors, including those for duplicate, co-located monitors, are available at http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dar/baqs/pm25mon.html.

2.8-17 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality

According to the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program State of Science and Technology Report (NAPAP, 1990), the principal nitrogen oxide in anthropogenic emissions is nitric oxide (NO), which is oxidized by ozone to nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Nitrogen dioxide may then follow two different oxidation paths to become nitric acid (HNO3). During the daytime, the conversion is primarily due >to oxidation by the hydroxyl radical (OH), the concentration of which is a function of many parameters including solar ultraviolet radiation, relative humidity, and the background concentrations of nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and carbon monoxide. Estimates for the daytime conversion rate of NOx to HNO3 are about 8 percent per hour in the summer and about 0.8 percent per hour in the winter. At night, the conversion pathway includes the oxidation of NO2 by O3 which produces the nitrate radical NO3 and the combined form nitrogen pentoxide (N2O5). The reaction with ozone is the rate-limiting step, with estimated nighttime conversion rates of the same order as the daytime summer rates. . Reactions involving secondary sulfate formation include gas phase conversion of SO2 to H2SO4 initiated by reaction with OH radicals and aqueous-phase reactions of SO2 with H2O2, O3 or O2. In the eastern U.S., the peak conversion rate is about 5 percent per hour under more polluted conditions, but typically varies between 1 and 3 percent per hour during summer daytime conditions. In the turbines, ammonia is intentionally added to the flue gas to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx). Within the stack environment, at a temperature on the order of 7000F, ammonia reacts with NOx to form nitrogen (N2) and water (H2O). However, under typical atmospheric conditions, the rates of these oxidation/reduction reactions are insignificant. Thus, once released from the stack into the atmosphere, residual levels of unreacted ammonia will behave in a different manner. According to Seinfeld (1986), because ammonia is readily absorbed by surfaces such as water and soil, its residence time in the lower atmosphere is quite short. As the most abundant basic (i.e., not acidic) gas in the atmosphere, ammonia provides the principal means by which acidic substances, such as sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and nitric acid (HNO3) are neutralized. The combination of ammonia with these acids leads to the formation of the salts ammonium sulfate (NH4)2S04 and ammonium nitrate NH4NO3. The complexity of the chemistry and the lack of data for the abundance and distribution of all of the relevant chemical species make it impossible to predict the precise locations and rates at which reactions will occur (In addition to those compounds mentioned above, there are many others that play a role in the complete system). However, it is possible to describe the ammonium-sulfate-nitrate system given what is known about the properties and general concentrations of the numerous species. Three conditions dictate the relevant chemistry for describing the expected behavior of ammonia in the New York City area: 1) Ammonia levels should be low in urban areas because the primary sources are emissions from animal waste, ammoniafication of humus, and loss from ammonia-based fertilizers; 2) The atmospheric lifetime of atmospheric ammonia is relatively short; and 3) Sulfate (SO42") is the principal anion in East Coast aerosols. Given these conditions, there is likely to be insufficient ammonia to neutralize the SO42, resulting in acidic liquid-phase aerosols. Any additional ammonia

2.8-18 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality emitted into the atmosphere will thus tend to be consumed in reducing the acidity of the liquid phase by producing the less acidic salts, such as (NH^SO^ This process might result in the production of some secondary PM through the interaction of project emissions and existing atmospheric species. However, this production of (NH^SC^ will also lead to decreases in regional atmospheric acidity (albeit on a small scale). Based on how secondary PM forms, the contribution of the project to PM2.5 levels in New York City due to secondary particle formation would be significantly less than the small effect the project would have on primary PM2.5 levels. From Table 8.8-4 it can be seen that maximum combined NOx and SO2 emission rates from the turbines are similar in magnitude (in tons per year) to primary PM2.5 emission rates. However, under typical atmospheric conditions, only a few percent of the emitted NOx and SO2 would be converted to HNO3 and H2SO4, and only a portion of this would be converted to particulate matter. Where dispersion has not. diluted the emissions greatly, very little of the NOx and SO2 would be converted to particles because of the time required for the transformation. Far from the facility, where more of the NOx and SO2 would have been transformed, physical dispersion of the emissions would have diluted the impact to such an extent that it would be insignificant relative to background levels. Similarly, emissions of ammonia could have an impact on secondary PM formation through the formation of sulfates, but on an even smaller scale. As with the secondary PM related to NOx and SO2 emissions, the PM formed due to ammonia emissions is expected to be produced far from the turbines, where atmospheric dispersion would have reduced the concentrations to negligible levels. i. Potential Public Health Effects The potential for PM2.5 to affect public health is dependent on the amount of particulate material in the atmosphere (i.e., the higher the ambient PM2.5 concentration, the more likely that it will have an impact), and the composition of the material. The evidence cited by the U.S. EPA in establishing the NAAQS for PM2.5 is derived from observational epidemiologic studies that found, at typical ambient levels, PM concentrations are statistically correlated with increased levels of morbidity and mortality.10 It is also unclear what forms of PM and what physiological mechanisms are responsible for the observed health effects. However, the^extent of any adverse public health effect related to an increase in PM concentrations is expected to be proportional in some way to the concentration increase—a small increase in PM concentrations can, at most, lead to a

10 Some analysts doubt that PM concentrations and these health effects are causal. Compare Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Second External Review Draft, U.S. EPA 600/P-99/002aB (2001). Pope, III, C. A. (2000), "Epidemiology of fine particulate air pollution and human health: Biologic mechanisms and who's at risk?" Environ Health Perspect, 108(4), 713-23; and Samet, J. M., Dominici, F., Curriero, F., C, Coursac, I., & Zeger. S. L. (2000), "Fine particulate air pollution and mortality in 20 U.S. cities, 1987-1994," N Engl J Med, 343(24), 1742-1749; with Lipfert, F.W., Perry, Jr., H. M., Miller, J. P., Baty, J. D. Wyzga, R. E., & Carmody, S. E. (2000), The Washington University-EPRI Veteran's "Cohort Mortality Study: Preliminary Results," Inhalation Toxicology, 12(4), 41-73; and Gamble, J. F. (1998). "PM2.5 and mortality in long-term prospective cohort studies: Cause-effect or statistical associations?" Environ. Health Perspect., 106, 535-549.

2.8-19 Jamaica Bay ' Chapter 2.8: Air Quality small increase in PM related public health effects. As discussed above, based on modeled results, the project would not have a significant effect on ambient levels of PM2.5. In establishing the NAAQS for PM2.5 in 1997, U.S. EPA conservatively assumed that moderate levels of airborne PM of any chemical, physical, or biological form might harm health, and so additional regulation was required. In setting the NAAQS, U.S. EPA was required to account for uncertainties associated with inconclusive scientific and technical information and for potential hazards not yet identified. In setting the value of the annual average NAAQS for PM2.5, U.S. EPA found that an annual average PM2.5 concentration of 15 |ag/m3 is below the range of data most strongly associated with both short- and long-term exposure effects. The U.S. EPA Administrator concluded that an annual NAAQS of 15 |ig/m3 "will provide an adequate margin of safety against the effects observed in the(se) epidemiological studies."1 The annual standard is supplemented by a 24-hour standard of 65 |4.g/m3 to protect against short-term exposures in areas with strong local or seasonal sources. 2 Although the NAAQS for PM2.5 is based on the measurement of simple particle mass concentrations (i.e., total |ig/m3), the U.S. EPA recognized the need for further research into the relationships between PM composition and PM related health effects. Indeed, a major requirement of 40 CFR Part 58, (Ambient Air Quality Surveillance for Paniculate Matter, Final Rule), is the chemical speciation of PM2.5 at fifty monitoring sites across the country. A great deal of current PM research, including studies conducted under the U.S. EPA's Office of Research and Development,13 is focused on attempting to better understand the biological, chemical, and physical characteristics of PM underlying its potentially toxic effects. A basic finding among these studies is that different forms of PM2.5 differ substantially in their toxicologic significance. As noted above, unlike the other ambient air pollutants regulated at the national level— carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, and sulfur dioxide—PM (PM10 or PM2.5) is hardly a single molecule or small set of molecules, but is instead a sundry collection of complex aerosols and microscopic solids with widely varying physical, chemical, and biological properties. The vast differences among various chemical and biological forms of PM2,5 mean that these forms also differ significantly in their toxicologic effects. Considerable research will be required in order to identify, quantify, and rank the myriad components of PM2.5 in terms of their potential importance for public health. The National PM2.5 Speciation Program,14 established under 40 CFR Part 58 as mentioned above, will serve as only a modest, first-cut analysis, as it will provide no information on

11 62 Federal Register 28652, 38676 (July 18, 1997). 12 Although some advocates for a new PM2.5 standard identified PM2.5 as a "non-threshold" pollutant, and the Appellate Division in its UPROSE decision agreed with this position, the U.S. EPA Administrator rejected this view when promulgating the PM2.5 NAAQS, finding that up to 15 |ig/m3 of PM2.5 could be present in ambient air without causing adverse health effects. 13 U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Research and Development, Fiscal Years 1997-1998 Research Accomplishments, U.S. EPA 60-R-99-106. 14 id.

2.8-20 Jamaica Bay . Chapter 2.8: Air Quality the biologic content of ambient air PM, and only limited information on some metallic, ionic, and organic constituents of ambient PM. Although chemical and toxicologic knowledge of ambient PM2.5 is limited, current evidence, as outlined below, suggests that PM2,5 that is rich in either biologically-active material or in various metals is significantly more harmful than PM2.5 that has little to no biologic or metallic content. j. Biologically Active PM2.5 May Be Harmful Particulate matter rich in pollen and other aero-allergens is well known to exacerbate respiratory problems, especially among people with allergic asthma and sufferers of hay fever (also called seasonal allergic rhinitis). 5 Other common forms of PM, present year- round, may aggravate respiratory problems because of their biologic content. Fine particulate matter from "ordinary" resuspended dust, for example, is a complex mixture of biologically and immunologically-active materials, such as macromolecules, derived from molds, grasses, trees, cat and dog dander-epithelium, and latex rubber (Miguel et al., 1999). k. PM2.5 Rich in Metals May Be Harmful Inhalation of metals of various types may harm the upper respiratory tract, lungs, and other organs.16 Although such problems have long plagued various occupational settings, environmental scientists at U.S. EPA and elsewhere are now focusing on whether the heavy metal content of some forms of respirable PM may be responsible for correlations between ambient air PM and morbidity and mortality in studied populations. For example, U.S. EPA scientists have demonstrated that extracts of metal-rich PM cause lung inflammation in human volunteers.17 In particular, they evaluated ambient PM collected in the late 1980's from the Utah Valley, where PM was rich in copper, zinc, lead, and nickel because of the dominance of a major steel mill in that valley. Compared with extracts of "ordinary" ambient PM (obtained when the mill was closed), the metal- rich extracts induced several signs of inflammatory injury. The investigators conclude that "metal content, and consequent oxidative stress that paralleled metal concentrations" caused the injury they observed, so that "mass may not be the most appropriate metric to use in assessing health effects after PM exposure, but rather specific components must be identified and assessed." Similar studies have been carried out in laboratory rats, with similar results reported.18

15 American Lung Association, 2001, http://www.lungusa.org/air/envhayfever.html. 16Kelleher, P.T., Pacheco, K., and Newman, L.S. (2000), Inorganic Dust Pneumonia: The Metal-Related Parenchymal Disorders, Environ. Health Perspect. 108, Supplement 4, 685-696. 17Ghio, A. J. and Devlin, R.B. (2001), Inflammatory Lung Injury after Bronchial Instillation of Air Pollution Particles, Am J Respir Crit Care Med 164: 704-708. 18 Dye, J. A., Lehmann, J. R., McGee, J. K., Winsett, D. W., Ledbetter, A. D., Everitt, J. I., Ohio, A. J., & Costa, D.L. (2001), Acute pulmonary toxicity of particulate matter filter extracts in rats: Coherence with epidemiologic studies in Utah Valley Residents. EHP Supplement, 109(3), 395 - 404.

2.8-21 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality

I. PM2.5 From Turbine Generators Airborne emissions from combustion of low sulfur fuel oil and natural gas consist primarily of water vapor and carbon dioxide. Also emitted are low levels of PM, nitric oxide (NO) and carbon monoxide (CO), small amounts of NO2, N2O, and SO2, and trace amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), methane, and metals {AP42, External Combustion Sources, Section 1.3, September, 1998, and Stationary Internal Combustion Sources Section 3.1, April, 2000). Emissions of sulfur based compounds (e.g., SO2, sulfur trioxide) are a direct function of the quantity of sulfur in the fuel. Particulate matter emitted from turbine generators combusting low sulfur oil and natural gas consists primarily of organic products of incomplete combustion, and is very low in metal content {AP42, Section 1.3, September, 1998 and Section 3.1, April, 2000). Further, this PM contains no biological material. Small amounts of nitrates and sulfates may be present in this PM (given the gas-phase presence of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide), and NOx, SO2 and ammonia emissions may lead .to further (but much more diffuse) formation of secondary PM, but these constituents, when present at less than 1 |ig/m3 levels in air—even at the maximally affected locations, do not appear to harm health.19 Many toxicologic studies have shown that concentrations of hundreds of micrograms of sulfate or nitrate per cubic meter of air are required before even minimal changes in respiratory or other function can be observed, even in asthmatic subjects or in sensitive laboratory rodents.20 m. Conclusion As shown above, the operation of the turbines would be much less than the NAAQS levels established by U.S. EPA to protect public health and would have no more than a negligible effect on ambient air concentrations of PM2.5. Impacts to public health from project-related PM2.5 would be correspondingly negligible. Based on the composition of the facility-related PM2.5 emissions, there is no significant public health effect associated with operation of this proposed facility. 2.8.10. Global Climate Change a. Summary of the Kyoto Protocol For more than a century scientists have known about the possibility that man-made carbon dioxide emissions may cause an increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere. However, widespread public concern about climate change did not exist until the late 1980s when high temperatures, predictions from general atmospheric circulation computer models, and concern about the greenhouse effect jointly attracted public attention. Recognizing the needs of policy-makers for up-to-date scientific

Concentrations of at least 100 micrograms of sulfate or nitrate per cubic meter of air are required before even minimal changes in respiratory function can be observed, even in asthmatic subjects or in sensitive laboratory rodents. See U.S. EPA 2001 (PM Criteria Document Draft) for extended discussion and references. See U.S. EPA 2001 (PM Criteria Document Draft) for extended discussion and references.

2.8-22 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality information, the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization jointly established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The IPCC issued its first climate report in 1990, which called for a global treaty to address the issue. In 1989 the UN approved a resolution calling for an environmental summit, which was held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. At that meeting, the attending nations agreed to participate in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, an ongoing series of meetings the purpose of which was to develop agreements that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. After years of intense negotiations, the treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997. The Kyoto Protocol outlined basic mechanisms to address the climate change concern, but did not provide a clear picture of the treaty's detailed requirements, or "rulebook." Further negotiations were conducted in Buenos Aries in November 1998, the Hague in November 2000, Bonn, Germany in July 2001, and finally in Marrakesh, Morocco in November 2001. The Marrakesh Accords, which contain a detailed rulebook for the Kyoto Protocol, consist of the five main elements discussed below. Commitments The Protocol establishes a set Of legally binding emissions targets for Annex I Parties (relatively wealthy industrialized nations, as well as the Russian Federation, the Baltic States and several Central and Eastern European States), for the six main greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SFe). These targets represent a total cut among all Annex I Parties of at least 5 percent from 1990 (some countries have a baseline other than 1990) levels by 2008-2012. Implementation To meet the emissions targets. Annex I Parties that have ratified the Protocol must establish domestic policies to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions may be offset by increasing the removal of greenhouse gases by carbon sinks. In addition to domestic actions. Parties may also use three mechanisms—^oi«f implementation (implementing projects in the territories of other Annex I Parties), the clean development mechanism (implementing projects in the territories of non-Annex I Parties) and emissions trading (trading emission reduction amounts from other Annex I Parties)—to gain credit for emissions reduced (or greenhouse gases removed) at lower cost abroad than at home. Minimizine Impacts on Developing Countries Provisions are included in the Protocol to address the specific needs and concerns of developing countries, especially those most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and to the economic impact of response measures. Accountine, Reportine, and Review The Protocol has established several safeguards including an accounting system, requirements for regular reporting by Parties, and in-depth review of reports by expert review teams.

2.8-23 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8; Air Quality

Compliance The Protocol has established a Compliance Committee, to assess and deal with any cases of non-compliance by participating nations. b. United States Global Climate Change Policy Although the U.S. has decided against participating in the Kyoto Protocol, it has established a climate change policy whereby the aims of the Protocol—the overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions—are maintained. In February 2002, the U.S. Department of Energy began steps to recommend reforms to its existing voluntary greenhouse gas registry, to: (1) ensure that businesses that register voluntary reductions are not penalized under a future climate policy, and (2) give credit to companies that can show real emissions reductions. c. New York State Climate Change Policy The 2002 State Energy Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (Energy Plan) encompasses policies that address fairly priced, clean, and efficient energy resources. The Energy Plan directs the State to take advantage of technological developments among the most advanced uses of energy, and to participate in emerging markets for valuing and trading environmental attributes associated with energy use. Section 1.3 of the Energy Plan presents the policy recommendations for climate change related issues. Part 4.D, Promoting and Achieving a Cleaner and Healthier Environment states that "the State should lead the nation in taking actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, stressing the aggressive implementation of existing, and development of new technologies and strategies that would significantly reduce emissions." In the summer of 2001, the State announced the formation of the Greenhouse Gas Task Force, comprised of representatives from the business community, environmental organizations. State agencies, and universities, to develop policy recommendations that would be considered for incorporation into the Energy Plan. The following recommendations were adopted in the Plan21. • Commit to a statewide goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2010, and 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. • Develop a GHG emission registry program for registering baseline GHG emissions and emission reductions from actions implemented at facilities. • Emphasize the greenhouse gas emission reduction potential, most notably of carbon dioxide (C02), as a criterion in developing new program initiatives in the State's public benefits programs.

21 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, 2002 State Energy Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, June 2002.

2.8-24 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality

• Expand the State's efforts to improve the efficiency of electricity generation and encourage use of indigenous and renewable energy resources, including solar, wind, waste methane, geothermal, sustainable biomass, combined heat and power, clean and efficient distributed generation. • Adopt a specific plan to develop an indigenous bio-fuels industry in New York to produce, refine, and market transportation and other fuels from indigenous biomass resources. • Develop a program that allows businesses to enter into voluntary agreements to meet certain energy efficiency targets and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To assist businesses in meeting such voluntary agreements, the State should offer technical assistance, public recognition, expedited regulatory permit review, and financial incentives, as appropriate or necessary. • Redirect transportation funding toward energy-efficient transportation alternatives, including public transportation, walking, and bicycling, and provide incentives to encourage greater use of related alternatives that improve transportation efficiency. • Include in the State transportation planning and State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) related processes, consideration of CO2 production and mitigation strategies, as appropriate. • Target open space funding to prevent suburban sprawl, promote Quality Communities, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and support, adopt, and enhance transportation measures that reduce energy use and pollutant emissions. • Support, adopt, and enhance transportation measures that reduce energy use and pollutant emissions, such as Commuter Choice, Ozone Action Days, diesel vehicle retrofits, improved traffic signal coordination with light emitting diode (LED) replacement technology, transportation system management, and other similar actions. • Encourage low-cost, passive building efficiency measures, such as white roofs, passive solar design, and improved foundation membranes, and incorporate such measures in the State's building construction codes. In addition, the State should support local building and development projects that include funding for open space conservation and urban forestry and that reduce the need for air- conditioning in urban "heat islands." • Expand research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) of energy and GHG- efficient vehicle technologies, add GHG goals to vehicle tax credits and incentives, and coordinate with other states to encourage improvements in vehicle fuel economy. • Working with regional and local planning organizations, analyze and quantify the energy use and air pollution emissions expected to result from transportation plans and programs.

2.8-25 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality

• Support the design and construction of energy-efficient and environmentally- friendly "green buildings" through financial incentives, technical assistance, and related program initiatives. The State will continue to evaluate the economic and environmental benefits of all the policy recommendations of the Greenhouse Gas Task Force. d. Potential Project Emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG)

Greenhouse or climate change gases contribute to climate change by increasing the ability of the atmosphere to trap heat. The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Because these gases differ in their ability to trap heat, one ton of CO2 in the atmosphere has a different effect on warming than one ton of CH4. To express emissions of the different gases in a comparable way, atmospheric chemists often use a weighing factor called the Global Wanning Potential (GWP). The concept of a GWP was developed to compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. To be consistent with international practices and IPCC guidelines, carbon dioxide (CO2) was chosen as the reference gas, and therefore the GWP is taken as the equivalent heat-trapping ability of one teragram (Tg, or 1 billion kilograms) of CO2, expressed as Tg CO2 Eq. The proposed project would fire low sulfur distillate oil and natural gas. The greatest proportion of the potential GHG emissions from the project would be as CO2 from the combustion process. Trace amounts of CH4 and N2O would also be emitted, however, emissions of these compounds are considered negligible when compared to the total CO2 emissions, even taking into consideration their GWP, and are therefore not considered significant to the climate change issues. During natural gas firing, CO2 would be emitted at a rate of approximately 110 pounds of CC^/MMBtu {AP42, Stationary Gas Turbines, Section 3.1, April, 2000). CO2 emissions during distillate oil firing are estimated to be approximately 157 pounds CCVminBtu (AP42, Section 3.1, April, 2000). The proposed project would fire natural gas at, a maximum rate of approximately 4,744 million cubic feet per year (equivalent to 4,744 x 103 MMBtu/year), or low sulfur distillate oil at a maximum rate of approximately 13,800,000 gallons per year (equivalent to 1,930 x 103 MMBtu/year). As a conservative estimate, CO2 emissions were calculated assuming the worst case operating condition of 4,744 x 103 MMBtu/year (based on using natural gas exclusively). Therefore, CO2 would potentially be emitted at a rate of 522 x 106 pounds per year, or 0.237 Tg CO2 Eq. per year. Since low sulfur fuel oil would be the primary fuel for the project, actual CO2 emissions would likely be much lower. e. Comparison to State, National and Global Emissions As shown above, the proposed project would conservatively emit approximately 0.237 Tg CO2 Eq. per year. The annual emission of CO2 for the State of New York for the years 1995 through 1999 are shown in Table 2.8-11. As shown, the average annual emissions of CO2 over the most recent five years of available data has been around 195 Tg CO2 Eq.

2.8-26 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality

Table 2.8-11: New York State—CO2 Emissions Inventory by Sector (Tg CO2 Eq) Sector 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 New York Total 189.42 195.95 198.95 198.33 191.80 Commercial 26.55 27.65 29.59 27.68 30.62 Industrial 26.84 30.10 28.60 26.77 29.04 Residential 33.84 36.81 35.09 31.75 34.32 Transportation 62.88 65.96 6.96 66.51 67.69 Utility 39.31 35.42 39.71 45.58 30.18 Source: http://vosemite.epa.aov/oar/alobalwarminq.nsf/content/EmissionsStateEnergy C02lnventories.html

Therefore, based upon this highly conservative analysis, on the state level, the annual emissions from the proposed project would be approximately 0.12 percent of the total New York CO2 inventory. The annual emission-of CO2 for the United States are presented in Table 2.8-12. As shown in this table, the annual emissions have gradually increased each year to an annual value of 5,840 Tg CO2 Eq. On a national scale, the proposed project would contribute only approximately 0.004 percent (full load basis) to the total national emissions inventory of CO2. Table 2.8-12: United States—C02 Emissions Inventory for Electricity Generation (Tg C02 Eq.) Sector 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 U.S. Total 5,305.9 5,483.7 5,568.0 5,575.1 5,665.5 5,840.0 Electricity Generation 1,989.3 2,061.2 2,137.9 2,226.4 2,246.2 2,352.5 Note: Electricity Generation includes fuel consumption by both regulated utilities and non-utilities (e.g., independent power producers, qualifying co-generators, and other small power producers). Sources: U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000, April, 2002

Global emissions of CO2 in 1999 were estimated to be on the order of 22,367 Tg CO2 Eq. (U.S. DOE, EIA, International Energy Annual 1999, February, 2001). At this, scale, the proposed emissions of CO2 from the project would be less than 0.001 percent (full load basis) of the total annual global emission rate. f. Importance of Emissions It is difficult to quantify the importance of the emissions of the proposed project as it relates to increasing the emissions of GHG for the benefit of the common good (i.e., providing electricity). However, the emissions of this proposed project can be related to existing electrical power generating sources of GHG. In general, because of the market based economy for providing electrical power in New York State, energy generated by the project would in all likelihood displace some electricity that would have been otherwise generated by less efficient facilities. The operation of these sources would result in more emissions of GHG on a per megawatt basis than the proposed facility. The nature of the market driven sale of electrical energy favors higher efficiency electrical generating sources such as simple cycle combustion turbines.

2.8-27 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8; Air Quality g. Conclusion As shown above, the operation of the proposed facility would result in a negligible contribution to the state, national and global inventories of CO2 emissions, and therefore the impacts to general public health from project-related operations would correspondingly be negligible. 2.8.11. Cumulative Impact Analyses a. Introduction This section addresses potential cumulative impacts due to the six new combustion turbine projects that were constructed for LIPA for the Summer of 2002 (i.e., facilities at Shoreham, Edgewood, Glenwood, Port Jefferson, Bethpage, and Bayswater) and three separate combustion turbine projects that LIPA is considering for the Summer of 2003 (i.e. facilities to be located in North Heliport, Freeport, and the facility analyzed in this environmental assessment, Jamaica Bay). It should be noted that a possible fourth facility considered for Summer 2003, to be located in Greenport, on the North Fork of Long Island, is not included in the quantitative cumulative impact assessment since stack and emission data is not currently available. However, if that facility were to proceed it would be subject to its own analysis and reviews. In addition, a cumulative analysis has been proposed which examines the proposed Jamaica Bay facility and eleven other generating facilities in New York City and vicinity. b. Cumulative Impact Assessment of LIPA 2002/2003 Facilities Tables 2.8-13 and 2.8-14 present stack parameters and emissions, respectively, for the aforementioned projects. The LIPA 2002/2003 facilities are widely spaced throughout Nassau, Suffolk, and Queens Counties. This distribution of projects spreads the relatively low air emissions from each facility through a wide geographical area. The distribution of the facilities is illustrated in Figure 2.8-3. The study area selected for air quality modeling of the LIPA 2002/2003 projects includes 100-meter spaced polar receptors within 3-kilometers of each project, as well as a Cartesian grid with 2-kilometer spaced receptors which covers most of Long Island. All of the facilities have individually demonstrated through air quality dispersion modeling of potential facility emissions, to have insignificant air quality impacts (i.e. maximum concentrations are below the SILs). The maximum concentrations for each facility would occur very close to the combustion turbine(s) for each project. The concentrations continue to decrease with distance from the sources, such that at the distance to the next adjacent source, the concentrations would be a scant fraction oftheSIL and nearly immeasurable. , A cumulative impact assessment of these sources was performed using the same modeling procedures that were used for assessing compliance with air quality standards of the proposed facility alone. Maximum total concentrations were determined by adding together the modeling results and representative "worst case" background values. These

2.8-28 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8; Air Quality

Table 2.8-13: Stack Paramete rs UTM Stack Exhaust Stack Stack Easting UTM Elevation Height Temperature Velocity Diameter Source (m) Northing (m) (m) (ft) (K) (m/s) (ft) Shoreham 679,506 4.535.983 20 110 585 18.8 12 b Edgewood 644,031 4,516,504 30 105 641/679 25.9/17.6b 12 c c Glenwood 614,044/ 4,520,752/ 4 125 645.37/649.26 38.0/37.9 10 614,048' 4,520,727' c Port Jefferson 661,717 4,534,791 5 265 645.37/649.26° 38.0/37.9 14.14" Bethpage 626.708 4,511,463 37 100 654.67 18.06/15.26/21.66/13. 13.5 0° e Bayswater 604,720 4,496,120 2 110 678/733d 23.76/21.36/21.65 15 Jamaica Bay 604.690 4,495,964 2 110 679/721/756' 23.8/24.24/20.65' 15 Freeport 621,039 4,500,010 4 180 641/647/719' 33.8/34.0/33.4' 10.5 North Bellport 673.566 4,520,307 32 100 866.5/845.9/807.6h 17.7/19.5/23.3" 19 ' Effective stack diameter. b First value is used for CO, SO2, and NO2 modeling. Second value is used for PN/U modeling. c First value is used for CO modeling. Second value is used for SO2, PIVU. and NO2 modeling. " First value is used for CO and SO2 modeling. Second value is used for PM10 and NO2 modeling. ° First value is used for CO and SO2 modeling. Second value is used for PIVU modeling. Third value is used for NO2 modeling. ' First value Is used for CO modeling. Second value is used for SO2 and NO2 modeling. Third value is used for PM10 modeling. 0 First value is used for 1-hour CO and 3-hour SO2 modeling. Second value is used for 8-hour CO and 24-hour SO2 modeling. Third value is used for annual SO2 and annual NO2 modeling. Fourth value is used for PM10 modeling. '' First value is used for CO and PM10 modeling. Second value is used for 3-hour SO2 modeling. Third value is used for 24- hour and annual SO2 and annual NO2 modeling. ' First value is for Unit 1; second value is for Unit 2.

Table 2.8-14: Emissions NO. SO2 PM,o CO Source ID (Bis) (g/s) (g/s) (g/s) Shoreham" 1.18 1.73 1.58 1.58 Edgewood" 0.517 0.124 0.479 2.709 Glenwood" 1.91 2.38 2.17 26.77 Port Jefferson" 1.91 1.79 2.05 26.77 Bethpage" 0.49 0.09/0.06/0.1211 0.38/0.36" 0.46/0.33' Bayswater3 0.61 0.23 0.83 2.16 Jamaica Bay" 0.68 3.694/1.40'' 5.509/2.09c 2.186 Freeport" 1.92 2.82 5.10 2.709 North Bellport" 3.78 0.66/0.82g 1.26 32.76 " Per turbine. " First value is used for 3-hour and 24-hour SO2 modeling. Second value is used for annual SO2 modeling. c First value is used for 24-hour PM10 modeling. Second value is used for annual PM,o modeling. d First value is used for 3-hour SO2 modeling. Second value is used for 24-hour SO2 modeling. Third value is used for annual SO2 modeling, and is scaled by 8.400 hours/8.760 hours. " First value is used for 24-hour PM,o modeling. Second value is used for annual PM10 modeling, and is scaled by 8,400 hours/8,760 hours. ' First value is used for 1-hour CO modeling. Second value is used for 8-hour CO modeling. ° First value is used for 3-hour SO2 modeling. Second value is used for 24-hour and annual SO2 modeling.

2.8-29 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality

^^ values were compared to the NAAQS and NYAQS. The modeling results and ^P comparison to the standards are presented in Table 2.8-15. As shown in the table, the combined air quality results indicate that the total concentrations (i.e., the cumulative effect of the nine LIP A 2002/2003 facilities and worst-case background levels) would not exceed the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the cumulative effect would not produce significant air quality impacts. Table 2.8-15: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts of LIPA 2002/2003 Facilities Maximum Maximum Concentration Location Modeled UTM Background Total Averaging Concentration Concentration Concentration NAAQS UTM Northing 3 3 3 Pollutant Period (ug/m3)a Easting (m (m) (ug/m ) (ug/m ) (ug/m ) 1-Hour 86.0 614,328 4,521,576 7,130 7,216.0 40,000 CO 8-Hour 21.2 620,100 4,517,500 5,175 5,196.2 10,000 3-Hour 3.4 614,470 4,521,266 147 150.4 1,300 SO2 24-Hour 1.1 614,944 4,518,193 89 90.1 365 Annual 0.12 618,100 4,517,500 26 26.12 80 24-Hour 1.0 614,944 4,518,193 41 42.0 150 PMw Annual 0.12 618,100 4,517,500 19 19.12 50 NO2 Annual 0.10 618,100 4,517,500 47 47.10 100 a Maximum impacts from individual facilities may exceed the values shown in the table, since this cumulative analysis was performed primarily to predict cumulative interaction of the facilities. The maximum impacts from individual facilities are presented in the facilities' environmental assessments and would not result in any violations of air quality standards, and are consistent with the conclusions of this analysis.

A second demonstration supporting no cumulative interaction of the facilities may be made by an examination of the prevailing wind directions. In order to have cumulative concentrations, the emitted plumes would need to align in the same direction. Figure 2.8-4 presents a windrose (wind direction and speed distribution) based on meteorological data obtained from Long Island MacArthur Airport in Islip. This data was used for assessing the air quality impact of several of the projects, and is recognized by. NYSDEC to be representative of the meteorology of central Long Island. By comparing the distribution of winds one can discern that the prevailing directions are from the southwest and northwest directions. Southwesterly winds are more typical of

summertime conditions, when the facilities would likely be operating simultaneously. By k comparing the distribution of the facilities with the prevailing southwesterly winds, it is easily seen that the North Bellport Energy Center cannot interact with any other facility. The Bethpage facility's plume may overlap slightly with Edgewood and the Bayswater/Jamaica Bay facility's plume may overlap with Freeport. As stated previously, any potential combination of the plumes at a distance would result in maximum concentrations well below the SILs. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact from simultaneous operation of all nine projects. Finally, it should be noted that while the Greenport facility was not quantitatively assessed, the potential interaction of its emissions with the other LIPA sources is expected to be negligible and insignificant. This is because of the large separation ^^ spatially with the other sources, and that the Greenport emissions would be

2.8-30 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality

^^ predominantly downwind from all of the other sources. Furthermore, the maximum ^B concentrations from Greenport are expected to be well below the SIT s. c. Detailed Cumulative Analysis

A cumulative impact analysis was conducted using the ISCST3 model to assess the impact from the proposed Jamaica Bay facility along with other peaking plants and power projects in the area for comparison to the NAAQS. The sources included in the analysis are identical to the cumulative impact analysis recently performed for the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) for the Bayswater Facility. Emissions data for the existing and proposed sources analyzed (interactive sources) were provided by the NYSDEC. A total of twelve facilities, or twenty-two sources (including Jamaica Bay), were identified for the cumulative air quality modeling. A table listing the sources included in this cumulative modeling analysis is shown in Table 2.8-16. Each source was modeled at the worst-case load for each pollutant and averaging period as determined by the Jamaica Bay air quality analysis and NYSDEC supplied source data. Table 2.8-16: Background Source Parameters for Cumulative Impact Analysis NO. PM 24-hr PM Annual CO 1-hr CO 8-hr SO2 3,24-hr SOj Annual UTM UTM Source Easting Northing g/s g/s ?/s g/s g/s G/s Jamaica Bay (1&2) 604.69 4495.96 0.68 2.49 2.09 2.19 2.19 3.69 1.40 Bayswater (1&2) 604.72 4496.12 0.61 0.83 0.83 2.16 2.16 0.23 0.23 ^^ KeySpan Far 604.74 4496.01 22.3 1.0 1.0 3.10 3.10 42.5 42.5 flB Rockaway ^^ NYPA Pouch Terminal 578.8 4496.9 0.35 0.38 0.38 0.44 See Note 1 See Note 1 0.57 NYPA 23rd and 3rd 584.6 4501.6 0.86 0.76 0.76 See Note 1 See Note 1 0.96 1.0 NYPA Hell Gate 591.8 4516.7 0.70 0.76 0.76 1.14 See Note 1 See Note 1 0.88 NYPA Harlem River 591.6 4516.9 0.70 0.76 0.76 1.14 See Note 1 See Note 1 0.88 NYPA North 1st Street 587.3 4507.6 0.31 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 See Note 1 See Note 1 NYPA Vemon Blvd 588.6 4511.8 0.70 0.76 0.76 1.14 See Note 1 See Note 1 0.88 NYPA Brentwood 650.8 4510.7 0.35 0.38 0.38 0.57 See Note 1 See Note 1 Plant 0.44 KIACCogen{1&2) 603.0 4500.2 2.6 1.04 2.06 1.52 1.52 23.4 3.9 KIAC Cogen (3) 603.0 4500.2 0.36 0.31 0.38 0.66 0.66 Astoria Combined 593.103 4514.825 7.17 17.7 7.43 7.17 7.17 24.9 5.8 Cycle 1) No SO2 emissions were given in the permits supplied by NYSDEC. A cumulative analysis for 1991 was evaluated assuming S02 emissions from Bayswater which were scaled to account for higher or lower MW of the turbine. Note - Units are: M = meters; K = degrees Kelvin; m/s = meters per second; g/s = grams per second; UTMs in kilometers.

•

2.8- 31 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.8: Air Quality

^^ The ISCST3 refined modeling results for the cumulative impact analysis are presented in ^B Table 2.8-17. The locations of the maximum cumulative impacts are shown in Figure 2.8-5. The predicted ground level concentrations were added to monitored background levels and compared with the NAAQS. The monitored background values represent the highest predicted value over the three years (1998-2000) for each averaging period. The results of the analysis show that the ISCST3 concentrations when added to the monitored background concentrations are below the NAAQS. Except for CO, the locations of the maximum cumulative impacts shown in the figure demonstrate that the contribution from the Jamaica Bay facility would be negligible. For CO, the contribution from the Jamaica Bay facility would be very small, since the maximum modeled 1-hour and 8-hour CO impacts from the facility (as shown in Table 2.8-7) are well below the maximum cumulative CO impacts. Therefore, the Jamaica Bay facility would have a very small effect on regional air quality. Table 2.8-17: Results of Cumulative Impact Analysis Monitored Maximum Background Modeled Cumulative Averaging Concentration Concentration Concentration NAAQS Pollutant Period (ng/m3) (ng/m3) (WJ/m3) (ng/m3) NO2 Annual 52.6 1.04 53.6 100 PM10 24-H2H 48 5.5 53.5 150 Annual 23 0.4 23.4 50 SO2 3-H2H 173 128.3 301.3 1,300 24-H2H 77 57.8 134.8 365 A Annual 21 0.6 21.6 80 ^F- "^ CO 1-H2H 7,192 318 7,510 40,000 8-H2H 5.220 128.8 5,349 10,000 Note: H2H refers to the highest second-highest concentration.

•

2.8-32 2,9 Noise

2.9.1. Introduction This analysis examines the potential noise impacts due to operation of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. 2.9.2. Sound Level Fundamentals a. A-Weighted and Octave Bands There are a number of ways in which sound levels are measured and quantified. All of them use the logarithmic decibel (dB) scale. The Sound Level Meter used to measure sound levels is a standardized instrument. It contains "weighting networks" to adjust the frequency response of the instrument to approximate that of the human ear under various circumstances. One of these is the A-weighting network. A-weighted sound levels emphasize the middle frequency sounds and de-emphasize lower and higher frequency sounds; they are reported in decibels designated as "dBA." , In the design of sound control treatments, it is essential to know something about the frequency spectrum of the sound of interest. Acoustical control treatments do not function like the human ear, so simple A-weighted levels are not useful for acoustic design. The spectra of sounds are usually stated in terms of octave band sound pressure levels, in dB, with the octave frequency bands being those established by standard. The proposed facility's potential for noise impacts are evaluated with respect to the effect the equipment might have on octave band sound pressure levels, and overall A-weighted equivalent sound level. b. Sound Level Descriptors The sounds in our environment usually vary with time so they cannot simply be described with a single number. Two methods are used for describing variable sounds. These are exceedance levels and equivalent level. Both are derived from a large number of moment-to-moment A-weighted sound level measurements. Exceedance levels are designated , where "n" can have any value from 0 to 100 percent. For example: L90 is the sound level in dBA exceeded 90 percent of the time during the measurement period. The L90 is close to the lowest sound level observed. It is essentially the same as the residual sound level, which is the sound level observed when there are no louder, transient sounds. L50 is the median sound level: the sound level in dBA exceeded 50 percent of the time during the measurement period. L10 is the sound level in dBA exceeded only 10 percent of the time. It is close to the maximum level observed during the measurement period. The L10 is sometimes called the intrusive sound level because it is caused by occasional louder sounds like those from passing motor vehicles. By using exceedance levels it is possible to separate prevailing, steady sounds (the L90) from occasional, louder sounds (the L10) in the environment.

2.9-1 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.9: Noise

^^ The equivalent level is the level of a hypothetical steady sound that has the same energy ^B as the actual fluctuating sound observed. The equivalent level is designated Leq, and is also A-weighted. The equivalent level is strongly influenced by occasional loud, intrusive sounds. When a steady sound is observed, all of the Ln and Lgq are equal. This analysis Of sounds from the operation of the Project treats all facility-related sounds as if they will be steady and continuous. For this reason, the analysis represents the facility during the periods when all major sources are producing sound at the same time. c. Community Response to Change in Sound Levels The typical ability of an individual to perceive changes in noise levels is summarized in Table 2.9-1. Generally, changes in noise levels less than 3 dBA are not perceptible to most people, while 10 dBA changes are normally perceived as doubling (or halving) of noise levels. These guidelines allow direct estimation of an individual's probable perception of a change in community noise levels. Table 2.9-1: Human Reaction to Increases in Sound Pressure Levels Increase in Sound Pressure (dBA) Human Reaction Under 5 Unnoticed to tolerable 5-10 Intrusive 10-15 Very noticeable 15-20 Objectionable ^B Over 20 Very objectionable to intolerable Source: NYSDEC, "Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts," Division of Environmental Permits, Albany, NY, Revised February 2,2001, page 15.

2.9.3. Noise Regulations and Criteria Noise is officially defined as "unwanted sound." The principal features of this definition are that there must be sound energy and that there must be someone hearing it who considers it unwanted. Noise impact is judged on two bases: the extent to which governmental regulations or guidelines may be exceeded, and the extent to which it is estimated that people may be annoyed or otherwise adversely affected by the sound. Regulatory authority for assessing and controlling noise is contained in specific NYSDEC program regulations. Specific regulatory references are as follows: a. New York City Noise Code The New York City Noise Control Code is administered by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) under Title 24 "Environmental Protection and Utilities," Chapter 2 "Noise Control" (March 1998). The code establishes ambient noise quality criteria and standards based on existing land use zoning designations. Table 2.9-2 summarizes the NYCDEP ambient noise quality zone (ANQZ) criteria. Operation of motor vehicles or other transportation sources are not included in

•

2.9 -2 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.9: Noise

Table 2.9-2: New York City Ambient Noise Quality Zone Criteria (dBA) Ambient Noise Quality Zone Daytime Standards* Nighttime Standards* (7AM-10PM) (10PM-7AM) Low-density Residential (R1 to R3) Land Uses 60 50 High-density Residential (R4 to R10) Land Uses 65 55 Commercial (C1 to C8) and Manufacturing (Ml 70 70 to M3) Land Uses = Leq (1-hour) Source: City of New York Noise Code (NYC DEP, Title 24, Chapter 2) determining consistency with the ANQZ criteria. The site is in a Manufacturing District (M3-1). The Noise Control Code limits construction activity to weekdays between 7 AM and 6 PM. b. New York City Performance Standards for Manufacturing Districts Section 42-213 of the New York City Zoning Resolution (Article IV Manufacturing Districts) contains noise performance standards applicable to manufacturing districts. Noise levels from any activity, whether open or closed, shall not exceed, at any point on or beyond the lot line within a manufacturing district, the maximum permitted decibel levels set forth in Table 2.9-3. When a Manufacturing District adjoins a Residential District, the maximum permitted decibel levels in all octave bands must be reduced by six decibels from the maximum levels set forth in the table in Section 42-213. The project site is located in an M3-1 district. The property line of the Jamaica Bay site abuts the property line of the Keyspan Far Rockaway site which is also within a M3-1 district. However, the nearby residences in the area near the project site are located in an R2 zoning district, which is located at Sunnyside Avenue. Operation of motor vehicles or other transportation sources are not included in determining the maximum permitted decibel levels. c. New York City CEPO-CEQR Noise Standards The City Environmental Quality Manual (CEQR) Technical Manual uses the following criteria to determine whether a proposed action would result in a significant adverse noise impact. The impact assessment compares the proposed action's future noise levels with the future noise levels without the proposed action ("Future Baseline Conditions") for receptors potentially affected by the project. If the future levels without the proposed action are equal to or less than 60 dBA and the analysis period is not a nighttime period, the threshold for a significant impact would be an increase of at least 5 dBA Leq. For the 5-dBA threshold to be valid, the resulting proposed action condition noise level with the proposed action would have to be equal to or less than 65 dBA. If the Future Baseline noise level is equal to or greater than 62 dBA Leq, or if the analysis period is a nighttime period (10 PM to 7 AM), the incremental significant impact threshold would be 3 dBA Leq-

2.9-3 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.9: Noise

Table 2.9-3: New York City Performance Standards for Manufacturing Districts Maximum Permitted Sound Pressure Levels After Adjusting for Adjoining Residential Zone (dBA) Octave Band Mi District M2 District M3 District (cycles per second) 20 to 75 79 79 80 75 to 150 74 75 75 150 to 300 66 68 70 300 to 600 59 62 64 600 to 1,200 53 56 58 1,200 to 2,400 47 51 53 2,400 to 4,800 41 47 49 Above 4,800 39 44 46 Source: New York City Zoning Resolution, Section 42-213.

d. New York State Department of Transportation The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has noise criteria that it uses for highway projects subject to its jurisdiction. NYSDOT has adopted the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) criteria as its own (23 CFR 772). The FHWA criteria can be classified as "fixed" noise criteria and "relative" noise criteria. Although these criteria are not applicable to this project, they are presented as a basis of comparison. The fixed noise criteria consist of the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) as defined in 23 CFR 772. These are reproduced below as Table 2.9-4 and are a function of land use. By NYSDOT policy, substantial noise impacts occur when predicted traffic-noise levels equal or exceed the applicable NAC. Table 2.9-4: FHWA Fixed Noise Criteria

Activity Uq(h) Description of Activity Category A 57 Outdoors Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need, and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 Outdoors Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 Outdoors Developed lands, properties or activities not included in Categories A or B above (e.g., commercial, industrial, other). D None Undeveloped lands. E 52 Indoors Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, auditoriums, offices, etc.

The second type of FHWA criterion is relative to existing noise levels. A future level increase of six or more decibels over the existing level would be an impact, while an increase of five decibels or less would not.

2.9-4 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.9: Noise e. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSDEC published a guidance document titled Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts (Division of Environmental Permits, October 6, 2000; Revised February 2, 2001). This guidance document states that sound level increases from 0-3 dBA should have no appreciable effect on receptors, increases from 3-6 dBA may have potential for adverse noise impact only in cases where the most sensitive of receptors are present, and increases of more than 6 dBA may require a closer analysis of impact potential depending on existing sound levels and the character of surrounding land use and receptors. An increase of 10 dBA deserves consideration of avoidance and mitigation measures in most cases. The guidance also says that the addition of any noise source, in a non-industrial setting, should not raise the ambient noise level above a maximum of 65 dBA. Ambient sound levels in industrial or commercial areas may exceed 65 dBA with a high end of approximately 79 dBA. In these instances, mitigation measures utilizing best management practices should be used in an effort.to ensure minimum impacts. f. Impact Criteria For purposes of this project, an increase in noise levels of more than 6 dBA was considered a significant noise impact. In addition, for informational purposes an assessment was performed to evaluate consistency of the proposed project with three New York City noise level criteria: (1) The impact criteria contained in the CEQR Technical Manual which compares the proposed action's future noise levels with the future noise levels without the proposed action and considers a 3-5 dBA increase in daytime and/or a 3 dBA increase in nighttime Leq(i) noise levels as a significant impact; (2) The Ambient Noise Quality Zone (ANQZ) criteria contain in the City Noise Code, and; (3) The Performance Standards contained in the City Zoning Resolution for Manufacturing Districts. 2.9.4. Existing Conditions a. Sound Level Measurement Locations

A tour of the area around the site was conducted to determine the locations where sound from the proposed project would have the greatest potential to affect the community. Three measurement locations were selected to obtain a spatial representation of the ambient sound environment at the property boundary and at community locations. The sound measurement locations are shown in Figure 2.9-1 and described below. • Location 1 was in front of the residence at 1425 Sunnyside Street. It represents the nearest residences to the west of the site. Location 2 was in front of the residence at 2805 Bay 28th Street North. It represents the nearest residences to the northwest of the site. Location 3 was near the KeySpan property line and at the residence at 1388 Dickens Street. It represents the nearest residences to the east of the site.

2.9-5 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.9: Noise b. Measurement Methodology Daytime sound level measurements were made for 20 minutes per location on Wednesday September 18, 2002 from approximately 2:45 PM to 4:45 PM, and nighttime sound level measurements were made for approximately 20 minutes per location on Thursday September 19, 2002 from approximately 12:30 AM to 2:15 AM. Since noise impacts are greatest when existing noise levels are lowest, the study was designed to measure nighttime community noise levels under conditions typical of a "quiet period" for the area. The existing KeySpan Far Rockaway Generating Facility was operating during the measurement program. The FPL Bayswater Peaking Facility was not called on to operate during the measurement program. The sound levels were measured at publicly accessible locations at a height of five feet above the ground and at locations where there were no large reflective surfaces to affect the measured levels. The measurements were made under low wind conditions and with dry roadway surfaces. Meteorological comments are based on a hand-held Dwyer wind meter and a Wexsler Instruments sling psychrometer, as well as National Weather Service observations from the nearby JFK Airport. c. Measurement Equipment A CEL Instruments Model 593.C1 Precision Sound Level Analyzer equipped with a CEL-257 Type 1 Preamplifier, a CEL-250 half-inch electric microphone and a four-inch foam windscreen were used to collect broadband and octave band ambient sound pressure level data. The instrumentation meets the "Type 1 - Precision" requirements set forth in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) SI.4 for acoustical measuring devices. The meter was equipped with an internal octave band filter set along with data logging capabilities. The meter processed one sample per second using the "fast" response of the instrumentation. Statistical levels were calculated from the 9600 sound levels collected during each 20-minute sampling period. Octave band levels for this study correspond to the same data set processed for the broadband levels. The measurement equipment was calibrated in the field before and after the surveys with a CEL-284/2 acoustical calibrator that meets the standards of IEC 942 Class 1L and ANSI SI.40-1984. d. Baseline Ambient Noise Levels The ambient noise environment-is influenced by the existing KeySpan Far Rockaway Generating Facility, aircraft taking off and landing at the nearby JFK International Airport, vehicular traffic on Mott Avenue, pedestrians (daytime), and insects. Baseline daytime and nighttime ambient noise measurements are summarized below and are presented in detail in Table 2.9-5. There.was a pure tone at 4000 Hz measured at all locations from insects during the nighttime period. The measurement program found that daytime Leq measurements ranged from 63 to 68 dBA, while the nighttime Leq measurements ranged from 57 to 66 dBA. The insect noise at 4000 Hz caused an increase of 0-2 dBA in the nighttime Leq sound levels. If this noise source were removed, nighttime Leq sound levels would range from 56 to 64 dBA. To be

2.9-6 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.9: Noise

Table 2.9-5: Existing Ambient Noise Levels (dBA)

No. Location -«q L10 L50 L90 Daytime 1 1425 Sunnyside St 63 61 50 48 2 2805 Bay 28th St. 68 67 53 , 51 3 1388 Dickens St. 64 65 52 48 Weather: partly cloudy skies, 73 degrees F, RH 65%, winds south at 2-4 mph. Nighttime 1 1425 Sunnyside St 57* 55 53 52 2 2805 Bay 28th St. 63* 55 53 52 3 1388 Dickens St. 66* 57 49 48 Weather: partly cloudy skies, 64 degrees F, RH 77%, winds calm. * = These sound levels become 56 dBA, 63 dBA, and 64 dBA respectively if insect noise is mathematically subtracted.

conservative, the lowest measured Leq without insect noise at each location will be used in the noise impact assessment. 2.9.5. No-Build Conditions Since it is expected that the proposed facility would be in operation within eight months, future no-build conditions would be the same as existing conditions (i.e., noise levels would be the same as those shown in Table 2.9-5). 2.9.6. Noise Prediction Methodology Table 2.9-6 lists the sound power level data for the primary noise sources at the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. Sound power levels are independent of distance. These data were provided by equipment vendors and also taken from comparable facilities. The anticipated noise impacts associated with the proposed project were predicted at the property line of the three sound measurement locations (SMLs) based on these sound level data. Attenuation due to noise control features that will be included as part of the proposed facility were taken into account. As part of this installation, two exhaust silencers, one inlet air silencer, and a gas turbine enclosure would be provided on each Swift Pac to reduce noise levels. A 110-foot high exhaust stack and an SCR/CO catalyst were factored into the sound level data. In addition, it was assumed that the GSU transformer would be shielded from the residents to the west by a two-sided 30-foot high firewall, that the dilution air cooling fans would use a suction silencer, and that the ammonia dilution fans would duct the inlet and outlet to reduce sound levels. The noise contribution from each piece of equipment was predicted using the standard equation for attenuation of a point source of noise. The cumulative sound level at each receptor was calculated by summing the sound pressure level (SPL) generated by each piece of equipment associated with the project.

2.9-7 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.9: Noise

Table 2.9-6: Sound Power Levels of Maj or Sou rces of Facility Noise Source Octave BandL win dB Total 31 63 125 250 500 IK 2K 4K 8K A-wt. P&W FT8 Swift Pac 103 105 104 93 89 85 86 83 78 93.9 Exhaust stack 119 114 91 80 59 55 62 74 92 93.0 SCR breakout 110 105 99 97 87 76 72 62 44 91.1 GSU transformer 95 101 103 98 98 92 87 82 75 98.4 Dilution air cooling fans 93 93 92 93 93 91 88 90 98.1 Ammonia dilution fans 77 77 76 77 77 75 72 74 82.1 Intercooler recycle fans 89 95 94 91 86 84 78 72 66 89.0

Lp = Lw - 201ogD - Ac + 2.3, where: Lp = predicted sound pressure level, Lw = equipment sound power level, D = distance for Lp (feet), and Ae = excess attenuation.

In the equation above, the term [201ogD] represents the decrease of sound levels due to distance from the source by hemispherical spreading. Excess attenuation owing to environmental and other conditions is the attenuation beyond that caused by hemispherical spreading. It includes one or more of the following: Attenuation by absorption in the air, Attenuation by rain, sleet, snow, or fog. Attenuation by barriers. Attenuation by grass, shrubbery, and trees, and Attenuation and fluctuation from wind/temperature gradients, and atmospheric turbulence. Atmospheric absorption is the process by which sound energy is absorbed by the air. It is highly dependent on the temperature and moisture content of the air, and is significant at large distances and high frequencies. Atmospheric absorption data were taken from ANSI S1.26-1978[2] and were applied to a "standard day" defined as 15° C (59° F) and 70 percent relative humidity. At the relatively short distances involved in this study, atmospheric absorption will not vary significantly under any atmospheric conditions. Attenuation due to the other meteorological factors was not considered in estimating future sound levels. In addition, no attenuation credit was taken for soft ground absorption, foliage or tree cover. Barrier shielding from equipment on site was incorporated in the model predictions where appropriate.

2.9-8 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.9: Noise

2.9.7. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project Predicted Leq(l) noise levels at each receptor location with the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility, using the methodology described above, are presented in Table 2.9-7. Maximum steady-state sound levels from the proposed facility alone are expected to range from 45 dBA at the nearest residences to the east to 50 dBA at the nearest residence to the west. Future nighttime Leq(l) sound levels with the Jamaica Bay Facility plus existing background combined would increase by 1.0 dBA or less. These increases would be imperceptible and well below the 6-dBA impact criteria for significance.

Table 2.9-7: Future Broadband Lea Noise Levels Near the Project Site (dBA) No. Location Existing Project Total with Increase Ambient Only the Project 1 1425 Sunnyside Street 56 50 57.0 1.0 2 2805 Bay 28th Street 63 48 63.1 0.1 3 1388 Dickens Street 64 45 64.1 0.1

As discussed above, for information purposes, noise due to the proposed Jamaica Bay facility was compared to three New York City noise level criteria. (1) With regard to the CEQR impact criteria, the maximum increase in Leq(l) noise levels at any of the sensitive receptor locations would be 1.0 dBA which is less than the 3 dBA impact criteria contained in the CEQR Technical Manual. Also, at Inwood Park across the Motts Basin, worst-case Lio sound levels from the proposed facility are calculated at 38 dBA which is well below the NYC CEQR Acceptable General External Exposure for "outdoor areas requiring serenity and quiet" of 55 dBA or less. (2) With regard to the ANQZ criteria, noise levels due to the proposed facility would be less than levels specified in the Ambient Noise Quality Zone (ANQZ) criteria contain in the City Noise Code. (3) As shown in Table 2.9-8 for all octave bands, noise levels at all three residential receptor locations would be less than the octave band limits specified in the Performance Standards contained in the City Zoning Resolution for Manufacturing Districts. However, for two octave bands, at the property line between the project site and the KeySpan property (i.e., at the buffer zone between these two industrial properties and the residential properties) noise levels would exceed the octave band limits specified in the Performance Standards contained in the City Zoning Resolution for Manufacturing Districts. These exceedances, at this non-sensitive buffer zone location would not constitute a significant adverse impact, and except at this industrial buffer zone, the proposed facility would be in compliance with all New York City noise level criteria. Based upon the above, it can be concluded that the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would not have a significant noise impact and at all sensitive receptor locations, including residences, the proposed facility would be in compliance with all New York City noise regulations and requirements.

2.9-9 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.9: Noise

Table 2.9-8: Future Octave Band Noise Levels Near the Project Site (d B) No. Location Octave Band (cycles per seco nd) 20- 75- 150- 300- 600- 1200- 2400- Above 75 150 300 600 1200 2400 4800 4800 1 1425 Sunnyside Street 69 58 52 45 40 39 35 40 2 2805 Bay 28th Street 66 56 49 42 38 36 32 37 3 1388 Dickens Street 59 52 46 43 37 33 28 29 NYC M3 District (adjusted for adjacent 74 69 64 58 52 47 43 40 residential zone) — Keyspan/Jamaica Bay property line 84 65 59 52 47 46 43 54 NYC M3 District 80 75 70 64 58 53 49 46

2.9-10 2.10 Infrastructure

2.10.1. Introduction

This section evaluates the potential effects of the additional demand of the proposed facility on water and gas supply, sewage treatment and solid waste management. Existing infrastructure and capacities are addressed in relation to the existing operating conditions at the adjacent Bayswater and KeySpan facilities. The proposed facility would use New York City Department of Environmental Protection's (NYCDEP) water supply and sewage treatment facilities. Private companies would provide energy supply and solid waste handling. 2.10.2. Existing Conditions a. Water Supply

The NYCDEP water supply system is composed of three watershed areas—Croton, Catskill and Delaware—that cover approximately 2,000 square miles. All of the reservoirs combined have a storage capacity of 550 billion gallons. The water provided by the reservoirs comes from a complex system composed of reservoirs and lakes, aqueducts, and tunnels. Water mains distribute approximately 1.3 billion gallons of potable water to NYC residents including the five boroughs. A water supply system with these intricate capabilities will have little to no pressure fluctuations. Based on the hydrant study done for the Bayswater Peaking Facility, according to the NYC DEP, the current flow rate to the existing Bayswater/Jamaica Bay site of 500 gallons per minute (gpm) with some variation in flow rate during peak periods can be supported. On November 8, 2002 a hydrant test was performed and concluded that the flow of 650 gpm required for the Bayswater and Jamaica Bay facilities can easily be supplied from the existing water supply. The Jamaica Bay facility site is adjacent to the Bayswater and KeySpan facilities, which are connected into the water supply system for their daily operations. There is currently an eight-inch water main under Bay 28th Street, Motts Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue. b. Wastewater The project site is located within the service area of the Rockaway Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP). The WPCP discharges its treated effluent into Jamaica Bay under a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The WPCP is designed and permitted for 45 million gallons per day (mgd). The current 12-month average flow, ending September 2002, is 18 mgd, which is well below the permitted flow rate. The proposed project site is served by an 8-inch sanitary line located at Bay 24th, Motts Avenue, and Sunnyside Avenue. c. Stormwater

An 18-inch NYC DEP stormwater line, which leads to a 24-inch stormwater line on the KeySpan property provides stormwater drainage for the proposed site.

2.10-1 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.10; Infrastructure d. Solid Waste In New York City, private companies collect solid waste from commercial and manufacturing uses. Commercial solid waste is transported to out-of-city landfills. e. Energy Currently a gas main is located on the Bayswater site adjacent to the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility site. This source is available for the Jamaica Bay Facility to support full load operations only when the existing Bayswater facility is not operating. Existing electrical supplies to the site are anticipated to be sufficient for operations. 2.10.3. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project

a. Water Supply The NYCDEP conducted a hydrant flow test on March 8, 2001 to confirm that adequate pressures and volume were available on mains adjacent to the Bayswater Peaking Facili- ty. An additional hydrant flow test is being conducted to ensure sufficient pressure and volume of water is available for the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. On November 8, 2002 a hydrant test was performed and concluded that the flow of 650 gpm required for the Bayswater and Jamaica Bay facilities can easily be supplied from the existing water supply. The proposed facility would interconnect with the Bayswater line into the NYCDEP water supply system that is capable of furnishing a minimum of 500 gpm. The Jamaica Bay Facility would require a maximum water inflow volume of 70 gpm (excluding the fire suppression system), which equates to 100,800 gallons per day (gpd) (This is the maximum for a 24 hour day. However, planned operations are 16 hours per day). Based on pressure and flow tests, it is anticipated that Jamaica Bay would not have a significant impact on water supply from water usage that would occur. b. Wastewater The proposed facility has been designed to discharge facility sanitary effluents into the Bayswater sanitary system, which connects to the NYCDEP sanitary sewer system. The Bayswater system currently discharges at a controlled rate. Discharge to the sanitary sewer from the proposed facility would be directed to a holding tank and then discharged to the city sanitary system at the same controlled rate ensuring that the Rockaway WPCP would be able to accommodate the wastewater produced by the new generating facility. The facility would produce wastewater for discharge to the sanitary sewer from two sources. One source of minimal volume is based on two additional technicians needed for facility operations and maintenance. Using sewage generation rates from the SEQR Technical Manual, this volume is expected to be 50 gpd. The second source is process wastewater from area washdown and floor drains. The process wastewater system is designed for a 200 gpm max instantaneous flowrate; the average process wastewater flow expected is 25 gpm (36,000 gpd). The existing sewer connection permit would be

2.10-2 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.10: Infrastructure modified prior to any discharge. If actual discharge exceeds 25,000 gpd, Jamaica Bay may be required by NYCDEP to obtain an industrial pretreatment permit. c. Stormwater Stormwater from the Jamaica Bay site would be directed to the retention basin, and then conveyed to the NYCDEP storm sewer line using the Bayswater Peaking Facility's pumping system at the same controlled rate. Certain stormwater areas, such as the secondary containment area of the 300,000 gallon distillate oil storage tank, would also utilize sumps for collection prior to the determination to direct the stormwater to the retention basin. This will add another level of protection for stormwater discharges. The existing stormwater connection permit would be modified prior to any discharge. In addition, a SPDES permit would be obtained from NYSDEC for both infiltration and discharge of collected stormwater prior to plant operation. Any water collected and diverted to the stormwater retention basin would be passed through an oil/water separator as a precaution. The runoff calculations used to size the basin are based on New York City code requirements in addition to normal civil engineering practices and industry standard codes. The basin is sized to retain the difference between the maximum runoff and the quantity discharged to the NYCDEP storm sewer system. The water would be discharged from the basin by a pump system sized to the flow limit dictated by the NYCDEP. The existing storm sewer line discharges into Jamaica Bay. d. Solid Waste Jamaica Bay would have two to three employees located at the facility. The small quantity of solid waste generated on site is expected to be less than 30 pounds per week which is considered to be insignificant. The solid waste would be picked up and disposed of by private carriers. e. Energy The energy demands of the proposed facility are considered to be insignificant in light of available supplies. The proposed facility would require minimal electrical energy for construction, operation, and routine maintenance. The electrical energy could be obtained from KeySpan or Bayswater. The proposed facility would be constructed and operated to produce electrical energy for the adjacent power grid for use by businesses and residences in the LIP A served portion of Queens. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would tie its transmission line into the current KeySpan switchyard on site to increase the volume of electricity available for the community.

2.10-3 2.11 Hazardous Materials

2.11.1. Methodology The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would include the construction of a slab-on-grade and pile structure for use as a foundation base. As the project area has been in continuous industrial use for over 100 years, the disturbance and excavation of underlying soils during construction activities may have the potential to expose materials in the soil or groundwater that could be hazardous. This chapter addresses the potential for the presence of hazardous materials resulting from previous and existing uses on the site and in adjacent areas. In addition, the potential impacts from the project and the associated -control methods are also discussed in this chapter. An assessment of the site and adjacent areas was performed and included the following tasks: • Visual inspection of the study site to assess present conditions and determine whether there is evidence of potential site contamination. • Review of available historical Sanbom Fire Insurance maps, site maps and aerial photographs to determine past land uses in and adjacent to the proposed facility site. • Review of the federal and state database search performed by Environmental Database Resource (EDR) to identify facilities in close proximity to the site that are known hazardous waste disposal sites, facilities that emit hazardous materials to the air or sewer system, and facilities that generate, treat, or store hazardous wastes. 2.11.2. Existing Conditions a. Land Use History The land use history was established by review of Sanbom Insurance maps and aerial photographs. Sanbom map reviews were conducted for a 100-year period including maps from 1895, 1912, 1933, 1951, 1981, 1991, 1992, 1995, and 1996. The aerial photograph review included photos from 1954,1966,1974,1976,1980,1985,1994, and 1998. The Sanbom Insurance maps and aerial photograph review indicated that there might be possible environmental concerns within the proposed facility site associated with the former fly ash storage areas. In addition, there may be a potential contamination related to decommissioning of the former power generating facilities that had existed adjacent to the project area since at least 1912. A review of the aerial photographs also identified the presence of unprotected drum storage areas in and within the vicinity of the project area. These may also pose additional potential environmental concerns. The areas of concern for the presence of hazardous materials are shown on Figure 2.11-1.

2.11-1 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.11; Hazardous Materials b. Regulatory Database Review The results of a federal and state database search performed by EDR revealed potential environmental concerns, primarily related to leaking underground storage tanks (USTs), within the project area and adjacent surroundings. It does not appear that any of these concerns are directly related to the proposed facility site. c. Current Site Conditions

The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would be located on a 2-acre site of property leased by Bayswater in Far Rockaway, New York. The site consists of an unused parcel adjacent to the existing Bayswater and KeySpan facilities. The site is a relatively flat, grassy area and is currently undeveloped. The two-acre site has been covered with one foot of compacted, clean soil in accordance with the restrictive declaration executed with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) for Bayswater. It is bordered by a 100- to 130-foot vegetated buffer (see Figure 1-4). The adjacent land contains open grassy areas, small wooded areas, paved parking areas, storage buildings, Motts Basin bulkhead, and the substation and associated switchyard facility. Small outdoor storage areas and paved access roads also make up portions of the site. d. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Assessments Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments were conducted in 2001 for the areas adjacent to the existing KeySpan facility, including the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility site. The Phase I environmental site assessment conducted by the Long Island Power Authority (LEPA) identified the following as being potential contaminants of concern: petroleum products, hydrocarbons, metals, asbestos containing products, and lead-based paint. Any of these may be encountered when disturbing components of the existing plant. Subsequently, a Phase 11 environmental site assessment was performed by LIPA to evaluate the soil and groundwater onsite including in the vicinity of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility site. Environmental investigations were performed in the area of the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility site. The environmental investigations showed slightly elevated concentrations of some metals in the soils underlying the historic fly ash storage area. Samples collected from the site were compared to the regulatory standards noted in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM) #4046: Determination of Soil Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels. Test results were also compared to maximum Eastern USA Background Metals Concentrations. The data showed slight exceedances of the TAGM standards but not the maximum Eastern USA Background concentration limits as summarized below. • Beryllium was detected at concentrations ranging from 0.529 to 0.559 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg), which is equivalent to parts per million. The regulatory limit for beryllium soil cleanup objectives, according to NYSDEC TAGM #4046, is 0.16 mg/kg or site background. However, none of the three soil samples in this

2.11-2 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.11: Hazardous Materials

area exceeded the maximum Eastern USA Background concentration limits of 1.75 mg/kg. • All samples for mercury, except one, was below the NYSDEC TAGM standard of 0.1 mg/kg. One sample had a mercury detection of 0.142 mg/kg compared to the published USA Eastern Background Maximum concentration of 0.2 mg/kg. Copper was detected at a concentration of 27 mg/kg in one soil sample, which exceeds the soil cleanup objective limit of 25 mg/kg. This concentration is below the maximum Eastern USA Background concentration limit of 50 mg/kg. Zinc was detected in two soil samples at 48.2 and 48.9 mg/kg levels. While this concentration is above the soil cleanup objective limit of 20 mg/kg or site background, it is below the Eastern USA Background concentration of 50 mg/kg. All other metals tested were below published Eastern USA Background Maximum Concentrations for all samples within the former Area "B" Fly Ash Fill. • No Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) or Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (SVOC) concentrations were reported in the groundwater sample taken in this area above the instrument detection limits from the New York certified laboratory. • Groundwater analyses showed that groundwater samples in the area of the former Area "B" Fly Ash Fill area did not exceed the Groundwater Effluent Limitations Maximum Allowable Concentrations. After reviewing the foregoing environmental assessments, a deed restriction was issued by NYCDEP for the four acre Bayswater site. Since the area of the Bayswater assessments covered the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility site, these same requirements are considered to be appropriate for the Jamaica Bay project. The deed restrictions require the following measures: (1) Submittal and approval of a health and safety plan for any future excavations that would occur at the site at depths below the capped portion of the site or the one foot of clean fill placed on uncapped portions of the site. (2) For all the areas, which would either be landscaped or covered with grass (not capped), a minimum of one foot of clean soil would be placed. 2.11.3. Probable Impacts of the Project a. Potential for Site Contamination Petroleum Products - The facility would be designed with dual-fuel (natural gas and distillate fuel oil) capability and would utilize low-sulfur distillate oil for primary fuel. The fuel would be stored in a single 300,000-gallon above ground storage tank. In addition to the bulk fuel storage tank for the facility, KeySpan has historically stored and utilized petroleum products on the project site. Keyspan, however, now bums natural gas

2.11-3 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.11: Hazardous Materials at its Far Rockaway Plant. For purposes of this assessment, it has been assumed that there is still some residual petroleum in soil and groundwater beneath the site. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons - Due to the previous storage of coal and placement of coal ash and dredged sediment on the subject site, it has been assumed that there is still some residual polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil and groundwater beneath the site. Metals - Due to the previous storage of coal and placement of coal fly ash and dredged sediment on the subject site, it has been assumed that there is still some residual metals in soil and groundwater beneath the site. b. Control Methods The following steps would be taken to avoid adverse impacts from the project and to comply with the deed restrictions placed by the NYCDEP: • A health and safety plan (HASP) has been prepared and will be submitted for approval by NYCDEP and would be implemented during construction activities to minimize worker exposure and comply with the deed restriction. The -HASP would be prepared in accordance with 29 CFR 1910. The HASP also defines worker safety training and monitoring procedures, personal protective equipment, air monitoring equipment, action levels, and appropriate engineering controls for mitigation and protection. If HASP action levels are exceeded, construction activities would be halted until mitigation measures are taken. The plan would include measures to prevent inhalation and accidental ingestion of dust, including dust suppression through onsite spraying of water during dry weather, washing vehicles leaving the site, placing gravel on open areas exposed to vehicular traffic, and similar measures. The outline and Executive Summary of the HASP are included in Appendix E. • All material removed from the site would be disposed of in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. With these measures, no hazardous material impacts related to construction are expected to occur. • The low sulfur fuel would be stored in a 300,000-gallon tank. The tank would be provided with an impervious containment basin. The tank would be provided with a containment system that would be capable of 110 percent storage and a stormwater sump. The tank would be tightness tested before use and inspected on a regular schedule. A leak detection system would be installed and the system would have an audible alarm in the control room. The storage tank and containment design would include provisions for overfill detection and prevention. • The distillate fuel oil, received via one barge per week at peak use, would be unloaded along the recently refurbished Motts Basin Bulkhead, on the north side of the site. The receiving equipment includes moorings, receiving boom, transfer pump and metering, spill containment boom and response equipment, and fire protection equipment in accordance with applicable codes. Distillate oil is

2.11-4 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.11: Hazardous Materials

transferred from the unloading area to the storage tank via approximately 500 feet of pipe. Distillate received by truck would enter from the Bay 24th Street entrance off Mott Avenue, and proceed to the truck unloading containment area. The truck unloading area would have the capability to unload one truck at a time. All receiving areas would be equipped with oil-water containment, sumps and separators. Distillate oil would be supplied to the turbine generator oil fuel skid through pipe. A foam fire protection system would be included. • The Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system used to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides would use a 17.5-19.5-percent aqueous ammonia solution. For perspective, janitorial or industrial strength cleaning products can contain up to 10-12 percent ammonia. The aqueous ammonia would be stored in a steel tank with a 110 percent capacity and impermeable concrete or steel dike for secondary containment. In addition, other engineering devices would be used to minimize the exposed surface area of aqueous ammonia in the unlikely event of a leak or spill within the secondary containment structure. The ammonia storage system would ensure that in the unlikely event of a spill or leak, ammonia concentrations at residences in the community would be well below levels of concern (see Chapter 2.8, "Air Quality"). • Operation of the facility may also involve very limited use of other potentially hazardous chemicals. All chemicals would be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations in a manner that would mitigate potential health and safety concerns. With these measures there would be no significant impacts with regards to hazardous materials.

2.11-5 2.12 Natural Resources

2.12.1. Methodology This chapter presents information regarding the site's existing resources and identifies potential impacts of the proposed project. In order to gather relevant information pertaining to the site, reviews of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Tidal Wetlands Map (map # 604-496, 604-494), Department of the Interior National Wetlands Inventory Map (Far Rockaway Quadrangle), and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community panel #360497) were conducted. Communications were initiated with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries (NMFS), and area park officials due to the proximity to tidal resources. Formal data requests were made regarding threatened and endangered species and significant habitats. Request letters were specifically sent to the FWS, NMFS, New York Historic Preservation Officer (NYHPO), New York Office of General Services (NYOGS) and New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP). Copies of all request and response letters are provided in Appendix D. Federal and State agencies have confirmed that the proposed project would not have any adverse impacts on threatened or endangered species or significant fish and wildlife habitat. A field survey was conducted in 2001 to identify natural resources present on site and, an additional site visit was conducted on October 11, 2002 to confirm that conditions at the site have not changed. The collected information was used to assess the site for compliance with Federal and State jurisdiction and permitting requirements (Figure 2.12-1). 2.12.2. Existing Conditions a. Site Conditions The proposed facility site is located adjacent to the existing Bayswater and KeySpan facilities. The proposed site has been in continuous industrial use since its development prior to 1895. The northern portion of the KeySpan site is composed of a developed bulkhead facility and fill that was placed sometime prior to 1912. There has been continual disturbance of soils on proposed site for at least the past fifty years. At present, the proposed facility site has routinely maintained grass and other plants. The adjacent project area is either covered by existing structures (including generating facilities) or composed of grass and other plants bordered by a landscaped berm in the western and southwestern comer of the site, which are parts of the 100-foot vegetated setback buffer. The northern side of the bulkhead was recently renovated and is fully functional. The bulkhead has historically been used for equipment oil barge deliveries for the existing facilities. The map review showed that the entire site is located in an upland area and does not contain any wetlands. No significant natural resources were found on site during the field investigations. Offshore from the site, Motts Basin lies adjacent to the project area bulkheads and is a tidal tributary to Jamaica Bay. Jamaica Bay is designated as a Significant Fish and Wildlife Coastal Habitat and Critical Environmental Area due to its natural setting that provides habitat for migratory fisheries, reptiles and wildlife species through tidal waters and wetland habitats.

2.12-1 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.12: Natural Resources

b. NYSDEC Tidal Wetland Jurisdiction Lands adjacent to tidal wetlands are regulated in New York State and require permitting for any disturbing activity for a distance of 150 feet upland of the wetland. However, land adjacent to a tidal wetland where a functioning significant manmade structure over 100 feet long has been in existence since August 20,1977, or land which is equal to or greater than the elevation contour line of 10 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), is exempt from tidal wetland permitting requirements. The site is located in an industrial area, adjacent to Motts Basin within bulkheads that have existed since prior to August 20, 1977. Motts Basin is mapped as a littoral zone within the vicinity of the project area. A littoral zone is defined as an area of tidal water with a depth of less than six feet at mean low water. Portions of the surrounding areas of the site to the east and west are classified as Intertidal Marshes and Coastal Shoals, Bars and Mudflats (Figure 2.12-2). The areas of the site outside of the limits of the bulkheads are greater then 150 feet from the limits of tidal wetlands. The limits of tidal wetlands were reviewed and determined to approximately match or be further seaward than those depicted on NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Map 604-496 during a field reconnaissance on February 14, 2001. Since the project would not result in any significant disturbing activity, no NYSDEC wetlands permit would be required for the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility. This determination is based on the physical condition, age and location of the bulkhead on site, and that the site is located greater then 150 feet away from tidal wetlands along the western boundary of the bulkhead. These findings were presented to Kevin Kispert, NYSDEC during a phone conversation on November 6,2002. c. Federal, State, and Local Parks After reviewing the surrounding vicinity of the project area, several federal, state and local parks were identified, including: the Gateway National Recreation Area (GNRA), Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge which is under the jurisdiction of the GNRA, the Bayswater Point State Park, and various county parks. In support of the permitting efforts for the Bayswater Peaking Facility project, a letter providing a brief overview of the proposed site activities and project area was sent to each of the agencies and park officials representing the above-identified parks within the vicinity of the project area. The letters also explained that all disturbances would be limited to areas within the existing industrial facility, and that there are no anticipated direct impacts to any of the identified parks or their resources, which remains consistent for the Jamaica Bay Facility site. A letter of concurrence stating that the park or its resources would not be impacted by project activities was requested from each of the appropriate park officials. A letter of concurrence was received from GNRA and additional correspondence from local park officials are still pending. (Appendix D, "Agency Correspondence"). Additional information was submitted GNRA concerning the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility project. On October 22, 2002, representatives of the Jamaica Bay facility met with GNRA staff including Mr. David Avrin, Assistant Superintendent, Mr. Don Riepe, Refuge Manager, and Ms. Kim Tripp, Research Coordinator, Natural and Cultural Resources. Jamaica Bay representatives met with GNRA staff and representatives of

2.12-2 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.12; Natural Resources

Eco-Watchers of Jamaica Bay to discuss opportunities for assisting with restoring wetlands in Jamaica Bay. Aerial photographs and video from an October 24, 2002 flyover of the Bay were sent to GNRA staff and Eco-Watchers representatives for their review and use. Future meetings are planned to discuss technical assistance for these plans. d. Species of Special Concern In order to confirm the absence of endangered or threatened species or species and habitats of concern within or surrounding the project area, written requests for database searches and reviews were submitted to the NMFS, FWS, and New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) on October 10, 2002. These formal requests were followed up by phone calls on October 16-18,2002. Conversations with Ms. Rusanowsky on October 21, 2002 indicated that NMFS has no concerns over the project since there are no federal-regulated activities. It should be noted that the minimal quantity of process water from proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would be discharged to the sanitary sewer system, and any collected stormwater discharged to the New York City storm water sewer. In response to requests, David A. Stilwell of the FWS responded that except for occasional transient individuals, no federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of FWS are known to exist in the project area. The NYNHP identified two threatened plant species, salt-marsh aster (Aster subulatus) and northern manna grass (Tripsacum dactyloides), that may occur in tidal marshes, brackish meadows, old fields, woods or thickets not observed within the site. The details of the Jamaica Bay project have been provided to NYNHP, and confirmation of no impacts is pending. The Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge has rare, endangered, threatened and species of concern, and is considered an important bird nesting and feeding area as well as being designated an Essential Fish Habitat. In response to requests, the Superintendent of the Jamaica Bay Unit of the GNRA indicated that the National Park Service has no objection to the proposed project. The proposed facility's construction activities and operations would be limited to areas within existing bulkheads, with the exception of a weekly fuel oil barge delivery and transfer arm that would extend past the bulkhead temporarily to offload barges. No process or stormwater discharges would be made directly to Motts Basin. Therefore, the proposed project should have no adverse effects on adjacent habitats. 2.12.3. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project No significant natural resources were identified on site. The Jamaica Bay Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat area and Critical Environmental Area exist adjacent to the western bulkhead of the facility site, as identified in the March 13, 2001 letter from the Natural Heritage Program, but would not be impacted due to the project location, construction and operations within the landward limits of the existing bulkheads.

2.12-3 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.12: Natural Resources

The project would have no impacts to fish and wildlife communities due to its siting in a maintained portion within the Bayswater and KeySpan sites. The project would be utilizing local storm and sanitary drains currently on site that discharge to the New York City sanitary and storm sewers. There would be no direct water intake or discharge to Motts Basin specifically for the facility. The project would maintain a buffer from nearby coastal areas and significant fish and wildlife habitats. Furthermore, the appropriate agencies, including FWS, NMFS, and Natural Heritage Program, have been contacted regarding the proposed project and they have indicated that they do not foresee any significant impacts associated with the construction of the proposed facility. The proposed facility is approximately 350 feet from the bulkhead at the edge of Motts Basin, which connects offshore, borders the proposed site. Additionally, the National Parks Service who has jurisdiction over the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge has indicated they had no objections to the Jamaica Bay project. The NMFS has also indicated, as documented in a telephone conversation record dated October 21, 2002 (Appendix D, "Agency Correspondence"), that after review of the project no further action regarding the Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is necessary. Discussions with NMFS on October 21, 2002 and GNRA on October 22, 2002 indicated the proposed Jamaica Bay Facility is not expected to have an impact on the natural resources.

2.12-4 2.13 Coastal Zone Management 2.13.1. Introduction

The New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program (WRP) is the city's principal coastal zone management tool. Originally adopted in 1982, it establishes the city's policies for development and use of the waterfront and provides the framework for evaluating the consistency of all discretionary actions in the coastal zone with those policies. 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 program may involve overlapping jurisdictions when a proposed project is located within the coastal zone and therefore may require interaction with other local, state or federal agencies. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 sets forth standard policies for reviewing proposed projects along coastlines. The New York State Department of State (NYS DOS) administers the program at the state level, and the Department of City Planning (DCP) administers it for the City of New York. The WRP originally adopted in 1982 included 44 State policies and 12 City policies. It established the City's policies for development and use of the waterfront and provided a framework for evaluating discretionary actions in the coastal zone. A revised WRP was approved by the City Council in October 1999. The overhaul of the WRP was the result of numerous plans and studies focusing on New York City's waterfront that led to a better understanding of the conditions and issues facing the waterfront. The goal was to simplify and clarify the review process. This chapter reviews 10 New York City coastal zone policies, which constitute the new WRP, and assesses, where applicable, the general consistency of the Jamaica Bay design with the new policies. The 10 new WRP policies were approved by New York State in 2001, and are used as the basis for City permitting or Uniform Land Use Review Procedures (ULURP) and City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR). 2.13.2. Related Regulations The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is responsible for the management and protection of natural resources and environmental quality. The NYSDEC regulates activities that may have a negative impact on wetlands and water quality. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is responsible for the protection and management of the nation's waterways and wetlands. Like the NYSDEC, ACOE reviews and issues permits for activities occurring in navigable waters and in tidal or freshwater wetlands that meet the national designation criteria. 2.13.3. Methodology New York City's new WRP includes 10 policies designed to maximize the benefits derived from economic development, environmental preservation, and public use of the waterfront, while minimizing the conflicts among those objectives. Each policy is presented below, followed by a discussion of the proposed project's applicability to and consistency with the policies.

2.13-1 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.13: Coastal Zone Management

There are two aspects of the project that are considered for Waterfront Revitalization: the direct impact of locating the project on a site near the waterfront, and the indirect impact of delivery of oil by contractors via barge to the existing KeySpan bulkhead. Oil deliveries by barge are expected once per week on average, during the time of facility operation. The barges would use an existing maritime waterway, and unloading would be done at an existing bulkhead that was installed prior to 1977 and has been used for active deliveries to KeySpan and Bayswater. Policy 1: Support and facilitate commercial and residential redevelopment in appropriate coastal zone areas. Policy 1.1: Encourage commercial and residential redevelopment in appropriate coastal zone areas. Consistent with this policy, Jamaica Bay would reuse a vacant portion of industrial land currently leased by Bayswater from LIP A. The property has been used for power generation activities for nearly 50 years. This project site is located in Far Rockaway, Queens County, and would be located on an area currently zoned M3-1. The project is consistent with the M3-1 zoning requirements (Chapter 2.1, "Land Use")- Policy 1.2: Encourage non-industrial development that enlivens the waterfront and attracts the public. The project site is an industrially zoned site with existing power generation facilities. The proposed facility would be consistent with current uses. Chapter 2.5 "Visual Resources" demonstrates the project would have minimal impact on the view shed of the site from other parts of the waterfront. Policy 1.2: Encourage redevelopment in the coastal area where public facilities and infrastructure are adequate or will be developed. The project site is accessible to public services such as water, sanitary/storm sewer and on site electricity and gas services, and they are adequate to serve the proposed project. The proposed Jamaica Bay Facility would access the local power grid and supply much needed electricity to the residential and commercial users in the New York Metropolitan Area of Far Rockaway. Policy 2: Support water-dependent and industrial uses in New York City coastal areas that are well-suited to their continued operation. Policy 2.1: Promote water-dependent and industrial uses in Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas. The proposed project would receive its fuel via barge, which is a water dependent use. The marine facilities are currently used for the delivery of petroleum products, and the surrounding uses are industrial. This area is well suited for continued operation of energy production and water borne commerce. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 2.2: Encourage working waterfront uses at appropriate sites outside the Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas.

2.13-2 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.13: Coastal Zone Management

The project is not located in Significant Maritime and Industrial Area, and this policy is not applicable. Policy 2.3: Provide infrastructure improvements necessary to support working waterfront uses. No infrastructure improvements would be necessary for the proposed project. Policy 3: Promote use of New York City's waterways for commercial and recreational boating and water-dependent transportation centers. Policy 3.1: Support and encourage recreational and commercial boating in New York City's maritime centers. The area is currently used for commercial water borne transportation and would continue that use in the future. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 3.2: Minimize conflicts between recreational, commercial, and ocean-going freight vessels. Fifty deliveries per year would not present a major conflict with recreational users. The vessels would be confined to the marked channels, while many of the recreational users can use waters outside of the channels which minimizes potential conflicts. Policy 3.3: Minimize impact of commercial and recreational boating activities on the aquatic environment and surrounding land and water uses. The vessels would be confined to the channels and would employ a number of measures to prevent or minimize impacts on the aquatic environment and surrounding uses. These measures are discussed in detail under Policy 7.2. Policy 4: Protect and restore the quality and function of ecological systems within the New York City coastal area. Policy 4.1: Protect and restore the ecological quality and component habitats and resources within the Special Natural Waterfront Areas, Recognized Ecological Complexes, and Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. Environmental sensitive areas near the proposed project site are shown on Figure 2.13-1. The project would have no impacts to fish and wildlife communities due to its siting in a maintained portion within Bayswater and KeySpan sites. Motts Basin, which connects offshore, borders the proposed site. The proposed facility is approximately 350 feet from the bulkhead and tidal limit of Motts Basin. This area has historically been in industrial use and recently was used for dredge spoil disposal. The project would maintain a buffer from nearby coastal areas and significant fish and wildlife habitats. Furthermore, the appropriate agencies, including Fish and. Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries (NMFS),-and Natural Heritage Program (NHP), have been contacted regarding the proposed project and they have indicated that they do not foresee any significant impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed facility. Policy 4.2: Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands.

2.13-3 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.13: Coastal Zone Management

The proposed facility and project site are approximately 350 feet from the bulkhead and tidal limit of Motts Basin. The areas of the site outside of the limits of the bulkheads are greater than 150 feet from the limits of tidal wetlands. In addition no freshwater wetlands were observed onsite. The New York State Department Of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regulates all actions in mapped tidal wetlands and within a 150-foot buffer area adjacent to them. Exceptions to the buffer requirement occur when the elevation of the adjacent area exceeds ten feet above mean sea level or when a man-made structure such as a bulkhead exists since August 20, 1977. Therefore no impacts to either freshwater or coastal wetlands are anticipated and the project is not subject to this regulatory requirement. These findings were presented to Kevin Kispert, NYSDEC during a phone conversation on November 6, 2002, and he concurred that the proposed project would not infringe on wetlands. Policy 4.3: Protect vulnerable plant, fish, and wildlife species, and rare ecological communities. Design and develop land and water uses to maximize their integration or compatibility with the identified ecological community. The proposed project would not impact fish or wildlife resources in the coastal area. The proposed project would utilize local storm and sanitary drains currently on site that discharge to the New York City sanitary and storm sewers. There would be no direct water intake or discharge to Motts Basin for the facility. Policy 4.4: Maintain and protect living aquatic resources. The proposed project would not impact fish or wildlife resources in the coastal area. The project would utilize local storm and sanitary drains currently on site that discharge to the New York City sanitary and storm sewers. There would be no direct water intake or discharge to Motts Basin for the facility. The proposed project would not infringe on wetlands or any aquatic resources. Policy 5: Protect and improve water quality in the New York City coastal area. Policy 5.1: Manage direct or indirect discharges to waterbodies. Jamaica Bay would conform to all state and local water quality standards. Periodic wash down of the gas turbine would generate a limited amount of process water that would be collected and trucked off-site for appropriate disposal. Stormwater runoff would be discharged into the New York City stormwater line. The facility would apply for a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit application for stormwater discharge to the New York City storm sewer. Policy 5.2: Protect the quality of New York City's waters by managing activities that generate non-point source pollution. Construction, operations and maintenance of the proposed generating facility would implement best management practices to prevent non-point discharges to coastal waters. The construction of the proposed facility would follow required city and state guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure stormwater is controlled and funneled into the drainage system and discharged to the New York City

2.13-4 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.13: Coastal Zone Management

stormwater lines. Also, during .operations of the facility BMPs would be followed to ensure stormwater is contained correctly. By following New York State's "Guidelines for Erosion and Urban Runoff," any non-point pollution would be controlled in the proper drainage areas and would have no impact to coastal waters. Policy 5.3: Protect water quality when excavating or placing fill in navigable waters and in or near marshes, estuaries, tidal marshes or wetlands. The proposed project would not involve dredging or require the disposal of dredged soil on site. Policy 5.4: Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater, streams, and the sources of water for wetlands. The proposed project would not affect any surface water body and because of the location and type of construction, groundwater would not be affected. The proposed project would not affect the source of water for wetlands, Policy 6: Minimize the loss of life, structures, and natural resources caused by flooding and erosion. Policy 6.1: Minimize losses from flooding and erosion by employing non-structural and structural management measures appropriate to the condition and use of the property to be protected and the surrounding area. The proposed project is above the 100-year flood plain (see Figure 2.13-2) and would not be affected by flooding. Policy 6.2: Direct public funding for flood prevention or erosion control measures in those locations where the investment will yield significant public benefit. The proposed facility would not require the use of public funds. Policy 6.3: Protect and preserve non-renewable sources of sand for beach nourishment. The project area does not contain public or private beaches and has no non-renewable sources of sand on the project site; therefore, this policy does not apply. Policy 7: Minimize environmental degradation from solid waste and hazardous substances. Policy 7.1: Manage solid waste material, hazardous wastes, toxic pollutants, and substances hazardous to the environment to protect public health, control pollution, and prevent degradation of coastal ecosystems. As described in detail in Chapter 2.11, "Hazardous Materials," all hazardous materials generated would be handled and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulations during construction, and operation of the proposed project. The health and safety plan would protect workers during the construction period. Policy 7.2: Prevent and remediate discharge of petroleum products.

2.13-5 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.13: Coastal Zone Management

Barge unloading would be along the recently refurbished Motts Basin Bulkhead, on the north side of the site. The receiving equipment includes moorings, receiving boom, transfer pump and metering, spill containment boom and response equipment, and fire protection equipment in accordance with applicable codes. Distillate oil would be transferred from the unloading area to the storage tank via approximately 700 feet of pipe. For any petroleum shipments by barge, all safety measures would be practiced to avoid any spills. The facility would have a facility response plan. Operations' Manual and a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan. Policy 7.3: Transport solid waste and hazardous substances and site solid and hazardous waste facilities in a manner that minimizes potential degradation of coastal resources. The proposed facility would not require the transport, storage, treatment, and disposal of solid or hazardous waste on site. Policy 8: Provide public access to and along New York City's coastal waters. Policy 8.1: Preserve, protect, and maintain existing physical, visual, and recreational access to the waterfront. The project site would not be adjacent to a shoreline where recreational use is appropriate. Policy 8.2: Incorporate public access into new public and private development where compatible with proposed land use and coastal location. The proposed facility is not associated with a public access area and for security purposes can not allow access to the site. Policy 8.3: Provide visual access to coastal lands, waters, and open space where physically practical. . As described in Chapter 2.5, "Visual Resources," the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on visual quality. The site is currently screened by a 100-foot wide buffer which was requested by and supported by the local community. Policy 8.4: Preserve and develop waterfront open space and recreation on publicly owned land at suitable locations. The project site is not be adjacent to a shoreline where recreational use is appropriate, - and is not publicly owned. Policy 8.5: Preserve the public interest in and use of lands and waters held in public trust by the State and City. The project site is not held in public trust and is privately owned. Policy 9: Protect scenic resources that contribute to the visual quality of the New York City coastal area. Policy 9.1: Protect and improve visual quality associated with New York City's urban context and the historic and working waterfront.

2.13-6 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.13: Coastal Zone Management

The proposed project would not impair scenic resources (Chapter 2.5, "Visual Resources"). Jamaica Bay Facility would be situated adjacent to Bayswater and KeySpan electric generating facilities. The facility would not impact KeySpan's 100- foot vegetated setback along Surmyside Place and Bay 28th Street. Policy 9.2: Protect scenic values associated with natural resources. The proposed facility would be adjacent to two existing power plants. The project site has been fully disturbed from past operational and construction activities. The proposed project would not affect any views of natural resources. Policy 10: Protect, preserve, and enhance resources significant to the historical, archaeological, and cultural legacy of the New York City coastal area. Policy 10.1 Retain and preserve designated historic resources and enhance resources significant to the coastal culture of New York City. Potential impacts on cultural resources are discussed in Chapters 2.3 and 2.4. There are no sensitive historic or archaeological resources in the vicinity of the site. The proposed project would not have any indirect significant adverse impacts on any sites listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. Policy 10.2: Protect and preserve archaeological resources and artifacts. Potential impacts on cultural resources are discussed in Chapters 2.3 and 2.4. There are no sensitive historic or archaeological resources in the vicinity of the site.

2.13-7 2.14 Construction

2.14.1. Introduction

The Jamaica Bay facility would be constructed on an existing industrial zoned property adjacent to the Bayswater and KeySpan plants. There are no structures on the 2-acre project site or 3-acre laydown area and no demolition activities would be required for the installation of the proposed facility. Installation of the proposed facility would involve a combination of on and off site activities. These activities generally fall within the following four phases: pre-construction site preparation, unit assembly and site finish, utility connections (natural gas, water and sewer, and electrical systems), and start-up testing. Each of these activities, as well as potential project impacts, is described below. a. Site Preparation

Site preparation would start with the grading of the site to a level surface (limited grading/excavation will be required). Minimal clearing will be required since the proposed site was historically filled by dredged material and substantial cover vegetation does not exist. Since the Jamaica Bay facility is being constructed on a portion of property owned by Bayswater, minimal surface preparation is required for this project. The next process would be the installation of the foundation and slab supports for the two combustion turbine units of the Pratt & Whitney Swift Pac. Installation of the equipment pad slabs would require excavation to accommodate a sub base and concrete pad for the unit, which would be approximately 60 feet long and 20 feet wide with a depth of 4 feet. Excavation for the gas turbine generator equipment pad would extend beyond the actual footprint of the slab to accommodate concrete forms and to enable the placement of select fill, as needed. It is possible that the underlying soil may contain construction debris that must be removed from the excavation area and replaced with clean fill that will be transported to the site, as needed. Excavated material would either be removed from the site for off site disposal, or spread on site. In accordance with the Restriction Declaration executed between Bayswater and New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP), the final site surface grade must include placement of one foot of clean fill. Soil erosion and sediment controls would be installed to reduce the potential for erosion and soil loss. All soils disposed of off site would be disposed of in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations. It is estimated that approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soil would be permanently removed from the site. Construction of each pad requires approximately 160 cubic yards of concrete. The equipment pad requires a soil bearing capacity of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Pile support are necessary in the Jamaica Bay area. Pilings are then augured into the soil below the foundation slab to a depth of between 40 and 80 feet, depending upon subsurface investigation results that would be made on site prior to installation of the piles. The installation of the screw pile support system would require additional on site construction equipment in the form of a pile driver, and additional truck trips to the site for the delivery of piling support materials. Anticipated impacts associated with providing additional foundation slab support would be repetitive noise from the screw pile driver during daylight work hours. Due to the location of the site in a heavily

2.14-1 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.14: Construction traveled and industrialized area, impacts associated with installation of additional pile supports are anticipated to be insignificant. Similar site preparation are required for the 300,000-gallon oil storage tank, truck- unloading facility and oil containment systems. The construction impacts associated with these systems are also anticipated to be insignificant. Oil would also be shipped to the site. Barges would be unloaded at the existing Motts Basin bulkhead, so there are no expected construction activities at the waterfront. Site preparation would require heavy equipment for grading, excavation and pad construction. This would include backhoes, front-end loaders, dump trucks, and concrete trucks. During this period, which should last about 4 weeks (on average), there would be an estimated 75 to 100 workers at the site. Truck trips would be heaviest during the pad installation and would amount to an average of 40 per day, primarily for concrete delivery. b. Unit Assembly and Site Finish Approximately 60 percent of the proposed facility (which includes the Pratt-Whitney units, control system, gas compressor, electric transformer, etc.) is delivered in a modular form ready for placement in foundations. An on-site crane is required to lift the components from the transport vehicles for placement on the individual foundation pads. Transport would likely be by barge, in order to reduce truck traffic on community roadways. While the major units of the proposed facility are delivered in modular form, other elements of the facility would be transported to the site in component parts for final on site fabrication and assembly. This would include the exhaust stack, equipment housing for air compressors, sprint skids, water injection pumps, water filtration systems, etc.; gas, oil, and water piping; and electrical conduits. On-site fabrication would generally require welding and bolting of pieces. Separate steel reinforced concrete pads would be constructed for support equipment. Construction of the pads for this equipment is similar, and would consist of excavation and poured in place concrete. Excavation and trenching for utility connections (gas and water piping and electrical conduits) would occur. Due to the possible presence of construction debris, utility lines are expected to either be fully buried or partially above- grade. Final site installation activities would include a stone perimeter drive providing access to equipment, a 6-foot-high protective chain link fence, site lighting and landscaping. Total time of imit installation is about 8 to 12 weeks. During this phase about 75 to 100 employees would be at the site. Other equipment would include cranes, compressors and hand held equipment. c. Utility Connections The proposed facility requires connections to natural gas and the existing adjacent facility for electrical power. The proposed facility would share wastewater piping infrastructure

2.14-2 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.14: Construction with Bayswater Peaking Facility, and the plant effluent would be discharged to local sanitary or storm sewers. Any collected storm water off the proposed facility would be directed to on site retention basins, and, if necessary, then discharged to an on site storm water line that connects to the City storm water system. A 69 kilovolt (KV) slid electric feeder line would connect the generating unit to a nearby substation via a subsurface conduit. This work would occur simultaneous with the on site assembly. Utility connections would tie to the existing connection available at the Bayswater and KeySpan facilities. Natural gas connections would be at the existing generating facility. Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) has indicated that gas connection upgrades may be considered for future years of operation. Utility connections would require the use of jackhammers, backhoes, front-end loaders, and dump trucks. Final cover and paving would follow. This construction period would overlap with the unit installation. Any on site excavated trenches would be temporarily decked with metal plates to facilitate traffic flow between active construction periods. d. Start up and Testing While the generating units are pre-tested off site, there is also testing of all systems prior to start-up and operation. Testing includes the gas turbines, generator, fuel management system, alarm and shutdown devices, auxiliary systems, and unit vibration. Tanks, water valves and piping are checked for completeness and operation. The interconnection testing includes high-pressure testing of gas, oil, and water pipelines, including blow test of gas lines, weld testing of all piping during construction, and point- to-point high-voltage and resistance tests of electrical cables to detect integrity of electrical connections and insulation integrity. The gas turbine generator set is again fully re-tested, including calibration of valving and voltage regulator. After re-assembly and preliminary testing has been done, the unit is started and again tested for performance, noise, emissions and power output. This testing determines whether the turbine generator is ready for full-time operation. 2.14.2. Potential Impacts and Control Methods a. Traffic During construction, there would be new vehicle trips to and from the project site, including those from workers commuting to and from the site, as well as those from movement of goods and equipment. The estimated average number of construction workers on site at any one time could vary, depending on the stage of construction. Worker parking will be on site. The maximum number of workers on site is estimated to be approximately 75 to 100 during construction. Generally, construction worker travel would be private automobile. Given typical construction hours, worker trips would be concentrated in off-peak hours and would not represent a substantial increase during peak travel periods. Therefore, vehicle trips associated with construction would not be likely to have any significant adverse impacts on surrounding streets.

2.14-3 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.14: Construction

Truck movements for materials delivery and removal will be spread throughout the day, generally occurring between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, depending on the period of construction. However, overtime and weekend shifts may be worked as necessary to meet the construction schedule. The maximum number of trucks is estimated to be approximately 40 per day during construction. Trucks would use prescribed truck routes based on community consultations and safety issues. The main generating unit would be delivered by barge and would not affect local traffic patterns. Based upon the relatively modest number of vehicular trips, and the short duration of construction, construction activities should not result in any significant traffic impacts. Vehicles would be able to access the site via a dedicated gate on Motts Avenue or the main KeySpan entrance on Bay 24th Street. b. Hazardous Materials A Health and Safety Plan (see Appendix E) would be implemented during construction to minimize exposure of construction workers, workers on nearby sites, and others in the vicinity of areas of concern on site. The Health and Safety Plan defines emergency contacts, directions to local hospitals, worker safety training and monitoring procedures, personal protective equipment, air monitoring equipment, action levels and appropriate mitigation and protective measures. In addition, all material removed from the site would be disposed of in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. With these measures, no significant impacts would occur during construction. c. Air Quality Possible impacts on local air quality during construction of the proposed project include fugitive dust (particulate) emissions from earth movement; mobile source emissions, including hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, and carbon monoxide emissions from construction workers and delivery vehicles and construction equipment operation. Fusitive Emissions Fugitive dust emissions are possible from earth movement, wind erosion and traffic over unpaved areas. Actual quantities of emissions depend on the extent and nature of clearing operations, the type of equipment employed, the physical characteristics of the underlying soil, the speed at which construction vehicles are operated and the type of fugitive dust control methods employed. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has suggested, in general, an overall emission rate of about 1.2 tons of particulate/acre/month of active construction from all phases of land clearing operations, before accounting for fugitive dust control measures. However, this is a national estimate and actual emissions would vary widely depending on many factors, including the intensity and type of land-clearing operations. Much of the fugitive dust generated by construction activities consists of relatively large-size particles, which are expected to settle within a short distance from the construction site and not significantly affect people nearby. NYC administrative code requires that potential dust producing operations be wetted down to the extent necessary to lay the dust. Appropriate fugitive dust control measures.

2.14-4 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.14: Construction including watering of exposed areas and dust covers for trucks, would be employed to minimize any impacts. As a result, no significant air quality impacts from fugitive dust emissions are anticipated, and the construction activities will be consistent with the NYC requirements. Mobile Source Emissions Mobile source emissions are emissions of air pollutants from motor vehicles, referred to as mobile sources. During construction, such emissions may result from trucks delivering construction materials or removing debris, workers' private vehicles, and construction equipment operation. Because the location of the site is adjacent to roadways, truck deliveries and workers' private vehicles will not need to travel excessive distances, and are subsequently not expected to have a significant impact on mobile source emissions. Therefore, mobile source emissions are not expected to be significant. Noise and Vibration Impacts on noise and vibration levels during construction of the proposed project include noise and vibration from construction equipment operation and noise, from construction and delivery vehicles traveling to and from the site. The level of impact of these noise sources depends on the noise characteristics of the equipment and activities involved, the construction schedule, and the location of the potentially sensitive noise receptors. Noise and vibration levels at a given location are dependent on the kind and number of pieces of construction equipment being operated, as well as the distance from the construction site. In general, like most major projects, construction of the proposed project would result in increased noise and vibration levels for a limited period of time. Pile installation can be disturbing due to perceptible vibratory levels, however pile installation activities, if needed, will be restricted to daytime hours and are anticipated for approximately one to two weeks of the construction phase. In order to further reduce disturbance, screw pilings would be used, which create less noise and vibration. Noise Typical noise levels of construction equipment that may be employed during the construction process are given in Table 2.14-1. Noise from construction equipment is regulated by United States EPA noise emission standards. The NYC noise requirements are discussed in Chapter 2.9, "Noise." These federal requirements mandate that certain classifications of construction equipment and motor vehicles meet specified noise emission standards and construction material be handled and transported in such a manner as not to create unnecessary noise. These regulations would be carefully followed. In addition, appropriate low-noise emission level equipment would be used and operational procedures implemented. Compliance with noise control measures would be ensured by including them in the contract documents as material specifications, and by directives to the construction contractor. The contractor would be encouraged to use quiet construction equipment.

2.14-5 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.14: Construction

^W Table 2.14-1: Typical Noise Emission Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Item Noise Level at 50 Equipment Item Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA) feet (dBA) Air Compressor 81 Dump Truck 88 Asphalt Spreader 89 Front -End Loader 84 Asphalt Truck 88 Gas Driven Vibro-Compactor 76 Backhoe 85 Hoist 76 Bulldozer 87 Jackhammer (Paving Breaker) 88 Compactor 80 Line Drill 98 Concrete Plant 831 Motor Crane 83 Concrete Spreader 89 Pile Driver/Extractor 101 Concrete Mixer 85 Pump 76 Concrete Vibrator 76 Roller 80 Crane (Derrick) 76 Shovel 82 Delivery Truck 88 Truck 88 Diamond Saw 902 Tug 853 Dredge 88 Vibratory Pile Driver/Extractor 89* Sources: Wood, E.W. and A.R. Thompson, Sound level Survey, Concrete batch Plant: Limerick Generating Station, Bolt, Beranek and Newman Inc., Report 2825 Cambridge, MA, May 1974. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Construction Noise Survey, Report No. NC-P2, Albany, NY, April, 1974. Bungener, J.H., Sound Level Survey: Wise's Landing, Kentucky, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., ^^ Report No. 2880, Downers Grove, IL, June 1975. •B F.B. Foster Company, Foster VibroDriver/Extractors, Electric Series Brochure, W-925-10-75-5M.

Noise levels caused by construction activities would vary widely, depending on the phase of construction and specific tasks being performed. In general, construction activities for the proposed project would take place on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM. However, based on scheduling, some activities may take place outside of this timeframe (weekends and after 6:00 PM). Increases in noise levels caused by delivery trucks, employees traveling to and from the site and other construction vehicles would not be significant, and would be limited to major access roadways to the project site. Increased noise levels caused by construction activities can be expected to be most significant during the stages of construction that require the use of impact equipment. At times this area currently experiences relatively high levels of noise due to air traffic from John F. Kennedy Airport, and due to industrial activities on site. In general, noise from construction activities associated with the proposed project, particularly operation of impact-type equipment, could be intrusive at the nearby school and playground located ... 0.25 miles southwest of the project site, and possibly some nearby residences and at Inwood Park across from Motts Basin. However, these impacts would be short-term in duration and would not be considered a significant adverse impact. Expected worst-case sound levels from the noisiest phases of construction activity are expected to be 75 dBA

•

2.14-6 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.14: Construction

^^ at the nearest residences on Sunnyside Ave, and 60 dBA at the nearest school and ^B playground. Vibration Table 2.14-2 shows architectural and structural damage risk and perceptibility distances for residential and historic structures in proximity to the types of construction activities that would occur during construction of the proposed project. Architectural damage includes cosmetic damage, such as cracked plaster, and it is not considered potentially dangerous. During screw pile driving, the existing Bayswater and KeySpan facilities would experience perceptible vibration levels; however, the levels would not result in significant adverse impacts. No residences are located within distance for potential architectural damage or perceptible vibration. Table 2.14-2: Vibration-Induced Risk Criteria for Buildings Activity Perceptible Historic Residential Structural Distance (feet) Blasting 1,000 400 300 60 Pile Driving 200 90 50 12 Pavement breaking 150 60 40 8 Bulldozing 60 30 20 3 Heavy Truck Traffic 50 20 15 3 Jackhammers 30 15 10 2 Sources: ^^ Wiss, John F. Construction Vibrations: States-of-the-art. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering ^^ Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 107, No. GTO, February, ^^ 1981.Standard Recommended Practice for Evaluation of Transportation Related Earthbome Vibrations, ASHTO Designation: R8-81 (1986).

Erosion Control An erosion and sediment control plan with sequencing and specific details has been prepared for the project utilizing the "New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control." Proper implementation of the plan, and its sequence and maintenance schedule, would ensure minimal impacts associates with construction-related soil disturbance. Erosion control would be accomplished through a combination of structural as well as vegetative measures. Several structural erosion and sediment control measures would be used. A series of temporary sediment traps would be strategically located within the project site, where runoff would be collected and settled. Straw bales would be used to protect all proposed catch basins and other drainage structure inlets. In addition, Phase II stormwater regulations will apply since the construction will impact greater than 1 acre of property. Anti-tracking entrances would be installed at the project site. In addition, silt fencing would be installed along contours directly below construction zones and used where sheet flow is likely to occur. This fencing would be installed prior to construction activity to

•

2.1^[-1 Jamaica Bay Chapter 2.14: Construction delineate areas predetermined as construction zones. Temporary and permanent vegetative measures are proposed to stabilize soils on the site.

2.14-8 2.15 Cumulative Impacts A cumulative impact analysis was performed to examine whether the proposed project, cumulatively with other relevant facilities (i.e., facilities built for LIP A for the Summer of 2002, facilities proposed for LIP A for the Summer of 2003, and other nearby generating facilities), would have the potential for causing significant adverse environmental impacts. The cumulative impact analysis considered each of the environmental categories (i.e., land use and zoning, community facilities, cultural resources, hazardous materials, traffic, air quality, noise, etc.). Because of the very localized extent of any facility's impacts, cumulatively, the new electric generating facilities have no potential for significant impacts. Nevertheless, to ensure a conservative assessment, quantified analyses were performed to assess potential cumulative air quality impacts. The detailed analyses are contained in the "Air Quality" chapter. All of the maximum concentrations from stack emissions would be below the applicable air quality standards. Therefore, in terms of air quality and all other areas of impact, the proposed project would not either individually or cumulatively, have any significant adverse environmental impacts.

2.15-1 3.0 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Standard Recommended Practice for Evaluation of Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. ASSHTO Designation: R8-81. 1986. Bungener, J.H. Sound Level Survey: Wise's Landing, Kentucky. Downers Grove, Illinois: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Report No. 2880. June, 1975. Environmental Data Resource® (EDR) reports, October 8,2002 F.B. Foster Company. Foster VibroDriver/Extractors, Electric Series Brochure, W-925- 10-75-5M. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community panel #360497).Mayl8,l992. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. State of Science and Technology Report. 1990. New York City. Zoning Resolution, Article Four - Commercial District Regulations. December 11,2001. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Construction Noise Survey, Report No. NC-P2. Albany, NY. April, 1974. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Permits. Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts. October, 2000; Revised February, 2001. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Draft Environmental Justice and Permitting Policy. August, 2002. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Report to the Examiners on Consolidated Edison's East River Article,X Project, Case No. 99-F-1314. February, 2002. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM) #4046: Determination of Soil Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels. January 24, 1994 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Tidal Wetlands Map (map # 604-496, 604-494). August 5, 1985. United States of America, Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations. February, 1994. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 summary file 3 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36081 .html and http://factfinder.census.gov) U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. American Trucking Assoc, Inc. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027. May, 1999. U.S. Department of Energy OE, EIA. International Energy Annual. February, 2001.

3-1 Jamaica Bay Chapter 3.0: References

United States Department of the Interior. National Wetlands Inventory Map (Far Rockaway Quadrangle). 1975 Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. AP42, External Combustion Sources, Section 1.3. September, 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Stationary Internal Combustion Sources Sections.]. April, 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Document for Particulates, Chapters 10-13. 1996. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/tlsp.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000. April, 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed NAAQS for Particulates. Federal Register page 65638. December 13, 1996. Wiss, John F. Construction Vibrations: State-of-the-art. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 107, No. GT0. February, 1981. Wood, E.W. and A.R. Thompson. Sound level Survey, Concrete batch Plant: Limerick Generating Station. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Bolt, Beranek and Newman Inc., Report 2825. May, 1974.

3-2 Appendix A Petition for Declaratory Ruling READ AND LANIADO, LLP v c^vto ATTORNCYS^LAW ^ U3^'C• ^ r IF' 23 EAGLE STREET ^ccr' P;l rc.- "I BAUY ALBANY, NEW YORK I2207-1BOI (B18) 465-0313 2807 SEP 20 PH2'-05 TELEFAX NO. KEVIN R. BROCKS (518)466-9316 CRA1G M. 1NDYKE DAVID B. JOHNSON Via Hand Delivery SAM M. LANIADO HOWARD J. READ

ROBERTO C. BARBOSA JEFFREY B. DUROCHER STEVEN D. WILSON September 20,2002

Hon. Janet Hand Deixler, Secretary New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223-13'50

Re: Case 02-E - - In the Matter of Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC - Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Construction of a 48 MW Natural Gas-Fired Peak Electric Generating Facility to be Located in Far Rockaway, NY. Dear Secretary Deixler:

Enclosed please find for filing with the Chairman of the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment an original and five (5) copies of the Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC's Petition for Declaratory Ruling. Respectfully submitted, READ AND LANIADO, LLP Attorneys for Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC

cc: Harris Rosen, Esq. (Via Overnight Mail) Mr. Louis Coakley (Via Overnight Mail) Stanley Klimberg, Esq. (Via Overnight Mail) PUBLIC SLRvlCh STATE OF hfEW YORK BOARD ON ELECTRIC ' cm^}y%^ W GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT OSEu • I IU 05 Case 02-E In the Matter of Jamaica Bay Peatoa^Facility, LLC - Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Construction of a 48 MW Dual Fuel-Fired Peak Electric Generating Facility to be Located in Far Rockaway, N.Y.

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING

Jeffrey B. Durocher READ AND LANIADO, LLP Attorneys for Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC 25 Eagle Street Albany, NY 12207-1901 (518) 465-9313 Tel. (518) 465-9315 Fax [email protected]

Dated: September 20, 2002 Albany, New York STATE OF NEW YORK BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Case 02- E - - In the Matter of Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Construction of a 48 MW Dual Fuel-Fired Peak Electric Generating Facility to be Located in Far Rockaway, N.Y.

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Part 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the Public Service Commission of the State of New York ("Commission")1, Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC ("Jamaica Bay" or "Petitioner"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of FPL Energy Bayswater, LLC, which in tum is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ESI Energy, LLC, which in tum is wholly-owned by FPL Energy, LLC, hereby petitions the Siting Board for a declaratory ruling that its proposed construction of a stand-alone 48 MW (91^ ambient temperature, 75 percent humidity) dual fuel-fired (natural gas and distillate oil) peaking facility ("Facility") in Far Rockaway, New York, immediately adjacent to an existing generating unit owned by Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC ("Bayswater"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of FPL Energy Bayswater LLC, will not constitute the construction of a major electric generating facility under Public Service Law §§ 160(2) and 162(1). Issuing a declaratory ruling in this regard is consistent with Siting Board precedent regarding similar proposals. The proposed Facility will benefit the public by supplying the Long Island Power Authority ("LIPA") with much needed generating capacity to Long Island customers and to a load pocket in Far Rockaway. Because of transmission constraints and reliability issues, the Facility is crucial to meeting electricity needs in the region during periods of peak demand.

'See 16 NYCRR§ 1000.1 THE APPLICAOT

Jamaica Bay will be fomed as a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware and will be a wholly owned subsidiary of FPL Energy Bayswater, LLC, which in turn is wholly-owned by ESI Energy, LLC, which in turn is wholly-owned by FPL Energy, LLC. FPL Energy (FPLE) is one of the nation's largest providers of electricity-related services and is a proven leader in producing electricity from clean and renewable fuels. FPL Energy owns and operates domestic power plants representing more than 5,300 megawatts.

Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC2 owns and operates a 44 MW natural gas-fired electric generating unit on a 4-acre parcel leased from LIPA and located on the Far Rockaway peninsula of LIPA's service territory. Like Jamaica Bay, Bayswater Peaking Facility is whollyowned by FPL Energy Bayswater, LLC, which in turn is ultimately owned by FPLE. Jamaica Bay will lease,a portion of Bayswater's parcel to site its plant and enter into contracts with Bayswater for the use of certain major infrastructure.

Jamaica Bay expects to sell all of its output to LIPA under a Power Purchase Agreement ("PPA"). LIPA provides retail electric service to 1.1 million customers in the Counties of Suffolk and Nassau and the Far Rockaway peninsula in Queens.

Because Long Island has a limited capability to import power, on-island generation is essential to maintain reliability. This summer unexpected transmission line failures and project delays have contributed to a capacity crisis on Long Island. Furthennore, demand for electricity on Long Island has been growing at an unprecedented rate. The peak load during July 2002 set a new record of 5,059 MW. The total electricity delivered for July 2002 also set a

1 See Case 01-E-0929 - Petition of Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC for a Declaratory Ruling on Regulatory Regime; Petition for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity; and Petition for Approval of Financing, Order Granting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Issued and Effective September 4,2001). See also Case 01-E-0929 - Petidon of Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC Order Providing for Lightened Regulation and Approval of Financing (Issued and Effective January 31, 2002). new record, representing 21 percent more electricity than for July 2001. As a result, LIP A has had to put into use emergency temporary generation3 and aggressive demand response measures. In response to LEPA's increasing need for generating capacity, particularly during periods of peak demand, Jamaica Bay proposes to build a facility as described herein. Jamaica Bay will be constructed on a compressed timefrarae and proposes to supply peak generating capacity

beginning in the summer of 2003.

Jamaica Bay's principal offices are located at 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, Florida 33408. Correspondence and communications concerning this filing should be

directed to: Jeffrey B. Durocher Read and Laniado, LLP 25 Eagle Street Albany, New York 12207 (518) 465-9313 Tel. (518) 465-9315 Fax [email protected]

THE FACILITY

Jamaica Bay will be a 48-megawatt dual fuel-fired generating facility located in Far Rockaway, New York. The Facility will consist of two Pratt and Whitney FT-8 Swift Pac gas turbines with a single generator and associated balance of plant systems. The unit will use infrastructure existing on the site for water supply and wastewater discharge. The Facility will soon apply for all necessary construction and operating permits. Those approvals will be subject to a coordinated environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.

3 See Case 02-F-0777 - Petition by Long Island Power Authority for a Declaratory Ruling that the Holtsville Temporary MobUe Emergency Generating Facility is not Subject to Article X of the Public Service Law, Declaratory Ruling Concerning Jurisdiction over a Proposed Facility (Issued and Effective June 28, 2002). The Facility will be physically and legally separate from the existing Bayswater facility, although some infrastructure will be shared. Shared components, as discussed in more detail below, include buildings for storage and control room equipment, employee parking and roads, water supply and discharge infrastructure, compressors and a stand-by, step down transformer. The Facility will enter into contracts with Bayswater for the use of these components. Jamaica Bay and Bayswater may also enter into contracts for common operation and maintenance personnel.

DISCUSSION

L THE JAMAICA BAY FACILITY WILL NOT EXCEED THE THRESHHOLDS FOR ARTICLE X JURISDICTION.

"Major electric generating facilities," those with a capacity of 80 MW or more are subject to the Siting Board jurisdiction under Article X.4 The Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility will have a nominal capacity of only 48 MW. It will, however, be located in proximity (400 feet) to the 44 MW Bayswater facility, which is owned by an affiliated company.

Previous Siting Board rulings indicate that an affiliate company proposing to construct a facility adjacent to an existing, affiliate-owned facility need not combine the capacity of each for Article X purposes. "The argument that the generating capacity of separate generating facilities on different sites should be added together for purposes of determining jurisdiction under Article X has been rejected."' In that case, NRG operated existing units with a capacity of 759 MW on a piece of property, a portion of which would be leased to an NRG affiliate for a proposed "stand-alone" 79.9 MW project.

Pub. Serv. Law §§ 160(2); 162(1). 5 Case 01-F-0222 - Petition of NRG Energy, Inc., Declaratory Ruling Concerning Facility Proposed by an Affiliate of Existing Facility Owner, p. 8-9 (Issued and Effective June 20, 2001) (citing Case 00-F- 1934). The Siting Board issued a ruling similar to NRG with regard to a KeySpan proposal. KeySpan proposed that its 79.9 MW facility be located adjacent to an affiliate's existing 228 MW unit on property leased from LIPA (Glenwood Landing).6 No changes to the

existing unit were proposed. There, too, the Siting Board found that Article X jurisdiction did

not exist. Similar declaratory rulings were issued to CPN 3rd Turbine, Inc., and PPL Global,

LLC. Accordingly, the capacity of the two facilities should not be combined for purposes of

Article X.

In a case involving the Village of Freeport, the Siting Board recently cautioned

against "aligned entities" proposing projects on contiguous parcels with a combined output of

80 MW or more.7 Jamaica Bay's proposal, however, is clearly distinguishable from the

Freeport simation, where two 47 MW generating units were proposed to be constructed

simultaneously. Petitioner's proposal herein is, however, nearly identical to the NRG and

KeySpan proposals.

Article X also contains a provision that requires a Certificate from the Siting

Board for "repair, replacement, modification or improvement" of a major electric generating

facility that would result in an increase in capacity of 50 MW or more.8 Physically and legally

separate facilities as proposed in the cases referenced herein and as proposed for the Jamaica Bay

6 Case Ol-F-1127 - Petition of KeySpan Energy Development Corp., Declaratory Ruling Concerning Jurisdiction over a Proposed Facility (Issued and Effective Nov. 20. 2001). See also Case Cl-F-1631 - Petition of CPN Bethpage 3"1 Turbine, Inc., Declaratory Ruling Concerning Jurisdiction Over a Proposed Facility (Issued and Effective Dec. 3, 2001) (finding a simUar project is not subject to Article X). 7 Case 02-F-0674 - Joint Petition of PPL Global, LLC and the Village of Freeport for a Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Constructidn of Two Independently Owned and Operated 47 Megawatt Simple Cycle Generating Units in the Village of Freeport, Nassau County, Declaratory Ruling Concerning Jurisdiction over Proposed Generating Units (Issued and Effective July 25, 2002).

' Pub. Serv. Law § 162(4)(c). Peaking Facility, do not constitute a change to an existing facility.9 In fact, no changes to the

Bayswater facility are proposed.

In subsequent rulings, it was determined that the addition of a new generating unit

adjacent to a facility that is not already .over the 80 MW threshold cannot be considered a major

electric generating facility.10 Because Bayswater is a separate facility and its capacity is far

below the 80 MW threshold, the "modification" provisions of Article X are not implicated.

II. THE JAMAICA BAY PEAKING FACILITY WILL BE A LEGALLY SEPARATE FACILITY.

As noted above, in previous declaratory rulings, two generators located on -

different, though proximate, sites and which are legally and physically separate were not

aggregated for purposes of Article X.u Jamaica Bay will be on a separate site and will be both

legally and physically distinct from Bayswater. Consistent with previous rulings, Jamaica Bay

should not be subject to Article X jurisdiction.

FPLE anticipates that the Jamaica Bay facility will be built on a portion of the

four-acre parcel that Bayswater leases from LIP A. The Facility will be built on land subleased to

Jamaica Bay. This arrangement between affiliated interests is indistinguishable from

9 Case Ol-F-0222 - Petition of NRG Energy, Inc., Declaratory Ruling Concerning Facility Proposed By an Affiliate of Existing Facility Owner, at p. 8. See also Case Ol-F-1127 - Petition of KeySpan Energy Development Corp., Declaratory Ruling Concerning Jurisdiction Over A Proposed Facility, at p. 7 - 8. 10 Case Ol-F-1127 - Petition of KeySpan Energy Development Corp., Declaratory Ruling Concerning Jurisdiction Over A Proposed Facility, at p. 8. See also Case 01-F-1631 - Petition of CPN 3rd Turbine, Inc., Declaratory Ruling Concerning Jurisdiction Over a Proposed Facility, at p. 6 - 7.

11 See e g. Case Ol-F-1631 - Petition of CPN Bethpage 3rt Turbine, Inc. for a Declaratory Ruling that the Company's Construction of a 47 MW Simple Cycle Gas Turbine Peaking Unit is not a Major Electric Generating Facility Subject to Article X of the Public Service Law, Declaratory Ruling Concerning Jurisdiction over a Proposed Facility, at p. 3. arrangements endorsed by the Siting Board in the NRG case.12 In that case, NRG proposed to build a 79.9 MW generating unit on a parcel of property owned by Astoria Gas Turbine Power, LLC ("AGTP") on which generating units totaling 759 MW already existed. AGTP, an affiliate of NRG, proposed to lease a portion of the parcel to another wholly owned NRG subsidiary. A common upstream parent wholly-owned both entities. The Chairman found that the two projects were separate and distinct facilities.13

In the KeySpan case, KeySpan Energy Development Corp. ("KEDC") proposed a 79.9 MW facility at Glenwood Landing. KEDC proposed the facility on a parcel of land condemned by LIPA and leased to KEDC. A KEDC affiliate, KeySpan Generation, owned an existing 15 MW unit on the Glenwood Landing site. Both companies were wholly owned by a common upstream parent. The two projects were considered to be separate facilities.1*

Similarly, in the instant case, there will be a common upstream parent and Jamaica Bay will be legally separate from, and will have no ownership ties to Bayswater. Jamaica Bay will be run as an independent entity. It will enter into its own arms-length contracts for fuel supply, water supply, maintenance, and sales of output. Jamaica Bay's operation will be • independent of Bayswater. Further, should some unforeseen event affect the business of Jamaica

Bay, it will not affect Bayswater, and vice-versa.

Pursuant to prior decisions, Jamaica Bay should be considered legally distinct

from its affiliate Bayswater.

12 Case Ol-F-0222 - Petition of NRG Energy, Inc., Declaratory Ruling Concerning Facility Proposed By an Affiliate of Existing Facility Owner, at p. 9. 13 Case Ol-F-0222 - Petition of NRG Energy, Inc., Declaratory Ruling Concerning Facility Proposed by an Affiliate of Existing Facility Owner (Issued and Effective June 20, 2001). u Case 01-F-1127 - Petition of KeySpan Energy Development Corp., Declaratory Ruling Concerning Jurisdiction over a Proposed Facility (Issued and Effective Nov. 20, 2001). El. THE JAMAICA BAY PEAKING FACILITY WELL BE PHYSICALLY AND OPERATIONALLY INDEPENDENT.

Jamaica Bay will be a stand-alone unit. Similar to previously proposed facilities the Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility will be an independently operated plant. Jamaica Bay and Bayswater will be able to start up or shut down individually without affecting one another.

Certain components will be shared between Jamaica Bay and the neighboring Bayswater facility. In particular, it is expected that the Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility will share the following components: 1) the access road and employee parking area, 2) personnel, 3) control room space, 4) storage and maintenance trailers, and transmission structures, 5) potable water supply line, sanitary sewer line, stormwater discharge and fire protection systems, 6) gas compression and gas meter station, 7) service and instrument air compression, and 8) stand-by step down transformer. Although some components are specific to electricity generation, several of these components are shared to avoid duplication and are the type of infrastructure that would be shared if a project other than an electric generator were built adjacent to the Bayswater site. Furthermore, these types of components have been shared in other proposals.

On the other hand, the two facilities will not share several additional components that were permitted to be shared in previous Siting Board rulings, such as back-up fuel tanks (NRG, KeySpan), filling station (KeySpan), demineralized water, and steam (CPN 3rd Turbine). Jamaica Bay will have its own buildings, exhaust stack, water supply, fuel supply, and power

sales contract.

15 Case Ol-F-0222 - Petition of NRG Energy, Inc., Declaratory Ruling Concerning Facility Proposed by an Affiliate of Existing Facility Owner, at p. 2; Case Ol-F-1127 - Pedtion of KeySpan Energy Development Corp., Declaratory Ruling Concerning Jurisdiction over a Proposed Facility, at p. 4, n.4; See also Case Ol-F-1631 - Petition of CPN Bethpage 3rt Turbine, Inc., Declaratory Ruling Concerning Jurisdiction Over a Proposed Facility, at p. 4-5. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Jamaica Bay PeaMng Facility, LLC respectfully requests that the Siting Board declare that the Facility will not be a "major electric generating facility" ' under Article X of the Public Service Law.

Respectfully submitted,

READ AND LANIADO, LLP Attorneys for Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC 25 Eagle Street Albany, NY 12207-1901 (518) 465-9313 Tel. • (518) 465-9315 Fax jbd@readlaiuado. com

Oma')

Dated: September 20, 2002 Albany, New York Appendix B Completed EAF 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The foil EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide amethod whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action.

Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts:

Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.

Part 3.. if any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important.

DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—Type 1 and Unlisted Actions

Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: |~£] Part 1 [^] Part 2 £j Part 3

I I A The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.

• g Although the.project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* C The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the D environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions

Name of Action

Jamaica Bay Energy Center

Name of Lead Agency

Long Island Power Authority

Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer

Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer)

Date PART l-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor

NOTICE This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment.. Please complete the entire form. Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.

It is expected that completion of the fiill EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance.

NAME OF ACTION Jamaica Bay Energy Center LOCATION OF ACTION (INCLUDE STREET ADDRESS. MuNiciPALrrY AND COUNTY) 14-25 Bay M"1 Street; Far Rockaway. New York 11691 Queens County BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME OF APPUCANT/SPONSOR Jamaica Bay Peaking FacUity, LLC/ S. Peter Ford (610) 361-1960 ADDRESS 700 Universe Blvd. STATE ZIP CODE CITY/PO 33408 Juno Beach FL NAME OF OWNER (IF DIFFERENT) BUSINESS TELEPHONE Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility (610) 361-1960 ADDRESS 700 Universe Blvd. ZIP CODE CITY/PO STATE Juno Beach FL 33408 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION

The proposed action is the installation and operation by Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC (hereafter, Jamaica Bay Energy Center) of one simple cycle dual-fuel fired electric generating facility on property to be leased by the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA). The facility will consist of one nominal 54 MW Pratt & Whitney FT-8 Swift-Pac comprising two gas turbines each with a nominal capacity of 27 MW. Jamaica Bay Energy Center will produce electricity for the New York City grid in the portion of Queens served by the LIPA. LIPA would enter into a power purchase agreement with Jamaica Bay to purchase the output of the facility.

The Jamaica Bay Energy Center will be constructed adjacent to two existing facilities, the Bayswater Peaking Facility and the KeySpan Far Rockaway Generating FaciUty, on a parcel of property leased from LIPA by Bayswater. The proposed facility will meet zoning requirements. Bayswater will sub-lease approximately 2 acres of property for the Jamaica Bay facility.

The proposed turbine generating unit is designed with dual fuel capability and will utiUze low sulfur (0.05%) No. 2 distillate oil for primary fuel, and natural gas as a backup fuel. Distillate fuel will be received by either truck or barge, and stored in a single 300,000 gallon tank with a 110% secondary containment protection steel shell and impervious bottom. Barge unloading will be along the newly refurbished bulkhead, on the north side of the site. The oil receiving equipment will include moorings, receiving boom, spill response equipment, and fire protection equipment in accordance with applicable codes. It is estimated that one barge delivery per week will be required. Distillate received by truck will enter from Bay 24"' Street, and proceed to a truck unloading containment area that will be designed and constructed for the facility. The truck unloading facility will have the capability to unload two trucks simultaneously. All oil receiving areas will be equipped with oil-water containment and separators. A foam fire protection system will be installed.

Natural gas for backup fuel will be connected to the existing Bayswater natural gas system. The Jamaica Bay FacUity will utilize the Bayswater gas compressor; however, a separate meter will be installed to monitor gas flow to Jamaica Bay. Water and sewer connections will be installed from the existing Bayswater facility infrastructure and will have independent meters. Site stormwater will be directed into a stormwater retention basis and then, if needed. Into an existing New York City stormwatcr line. There will be no direct discharges into Mott Basin from the Jamaica Bay facility.

Please Cumpletc Each Question-Indicate N. A. If not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present Land Use; Q Urban [7] Industrial •Commercial Q Residential (suburban) \_J Rural(non-farm) P] Forest Q Agriculture [7] Other Utility (2-acre project site) 2. ^Total , acreage of r project . area: -»2.0 n acres,rros - PRESENTLYriu»cnii-i AFTER COMPUETION APPROXIMATE ACREAGE JLO ^ J^ aCreS Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) _0_ acres 0 acres . acres Forested _0 acKS 0 acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, aopland, pasture, etc.) _0 acres 0 Wetland(Freshwaler or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) _0 acres 0 acres acres Water Surface Area 0 acres 0 acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) 2.0 acres 1.5 Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces _0 Fres 0.5 acres acres acres Other (Indicate type) _0 0

3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? a. Soil drainage: [7] Well drained % of site Q Moderately well drained 100 % of site. | | Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? N/A Acres (see 1NYCRR 370).

4. Arc there bedrock outcroppings on project site? | | YES [Xj No a. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet) 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: | x | 0-10% 100 % I I '0-15% I H 15% or greater % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National [^\ YES [x| NO Registers of Historic Places? 7. is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? | | YES |X| NO

8. What is the depth of the water table? _5 (in feet) 9. Issitelocatedover a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? I I YES [X| NO

10. IDO hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? I I YES 1X1 NO

11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? | | YES [xj NO

According to: David Stilwell, US Fish and Wildlife Service, October 2002; Diane Rusanowskv. National Marine Fisheries Service. October 2002; see Chapter 12 Identify each species: N/A : 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? | | YES [\j No

Describe: N/A

13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? | | YES jxl NO

If yes, explain: . ______^___^^__^^——^——

14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? | | YES | x | NO The proposed Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility is located on an industrial site that has been used for power generation for nearly 50 years 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: The project is located near to Motts Basin, which Hows into Jamaica Bay. There are no bodies of water within the project site. a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is Mott Basin is a tributary to Jamaica Bay. tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name: There are no freshwater or tidal wetlands within the project site. The closest tidal wetlands are found adjacent to the project site, and located approximately 300 feet away between the bulkhead and Motts Basin. __^ b. Size (in acres): N/A 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? fTl YES • No a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? [T] YES Q No

b. If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? YES No

Water, sewer and stormwater connections will be made to existing on-site infrastructure but metered separately from the Bayswater Facility. 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, I I YES [7] NO Section 303 and 304? 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 • YES m NO of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617?

20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? (Coal Fly Ash) m YES Q No

B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate). a Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 2 acres initially; _ acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) e If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A % f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 4 ; proposed 4 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 2 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially N/A Ultimately N/A I. Dimensions (in feel) of largest proposed structure 40 height; 30 width; 125 length. Exhaust Stack appurtenance to the generating facility will be approximately 110 feet tall and IS feet wide J. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 0 ft. 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 2.000 cubic yards tons/cubic yards. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? I I N/A • YES ITI NO a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? N/A b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? | | YES Q No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? | | YES Q No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? <0.5 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? I I YES [T] NO

6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 5l2i_ months, (including demolition) 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated N/A (number) b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 N/A month N/A year, (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date of final phase N/A month N/A year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? | | YES Q NO 8. Will blasting occur during construction I""] YES [7] No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction ; after project is 75 to 100 complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 II. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? • YES \T\ NO If yes, explain: N/A

12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? (T] YES | | NO a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc) and amount Very small quantities to sanitary sewer system, and limited quanitities of process industrial wastewater to be stored in tank for offsite treatment b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged N/A 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Type N/A I I YES [7] NO 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? I I YES |T] NO If yes. explain; N/A 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? I 1 YES [7] NO 16. Will the project generate solid waste? m YES • NO a. If yes, what is the amount per month negligible tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? I ] YES Q NO c. If yes, give name Licensed carriers will be used ; location NYSDEC licensed facility d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? | | YES [7] No e. If yes. explain: N/A __^ 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? I I YES \T\ NO a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal?' N/A tons/month, b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? N/A years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? I I YES \T] No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? | | YES | x I NO 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? | | YES | x I No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? | X I YES || | NO If yes, indicate type(s) The proposed Jamaica Bay Energy Center will use either distillate fuel oil or natural gas to produce ' electrical energy for the LIPA served portion of Queens. 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 67.200 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? I I YES [7] NO If yes, explain: N/A

25. Approvals Required (see Chapter 1): TYPE SIIBMITTAL DATE City, Town, Village Board YES X 1 No City, Town, Village Planning Board YES X NO City, Town Zoning Board | YES X NO City, County Health Department 11 YES X NO Other Local Agencies NYCDEP Air Permit Oct. 2002 X YES NO Other Regional Agencies YES X No State Agencies NYSDEC Air Permits Oct 2002 SPDES OcL 2002 X NYSDEC Tank Permits Jan.2002 YES No NYSPSC CPCN OcL 2002 Federal Agencies FAA Stack Height OcL 2002 US Coast Guard Operations - X Manual & Facility Response Plan Jan. 2003 YES NO FERC EWG & Market Rates Dec. 2002 C. Zoning and Planning Information

1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? | "[ YES | jj- | No If Yes. indicate decision required: PI Zoning amendment Q Zoning variance | | New/revision of master plan | | Subdivision P~) site plan Q Specisl use permit Q Resource management plan Q Other 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? M3-1: Manufacturing

3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?

Project would not exceed local zoning densities.

4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? No zoning changes are proposed.

5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?

No zoning changes are proposed. 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? | X | YES | | No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 'A mile radius of proposed action? The site is surrounded by M3-1 (manufacturine) and R2 (west and southVRS (east) (residential) located outside the M3-1 area. 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a lA mile? | X | YES | | No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A ; a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/A 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? | | YES [ x | No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire „ YES I I No protection? I I | |

a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic. | | YES || I No D. Informational Details

I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.

Applicant/Sponsor Name Louis Coaklev Date October 16.2002 Signature gf^^So/-JTCAJ^T. ( C^UffULU v ; Title Senior Environmental Specialist If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. PART 2 - PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency

SB General Information {Read Carefully) c» In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. © The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. o The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. o The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. e In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumulative effects.

Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate bDx(column 1 or 2)io indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2, If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. Identifying that an Impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further; e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. f. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact. also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained ^^ in Part 3, # IMPACT ON LAND i 2 3 1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical | ) NO fx") YES Small to Moderate Potential Large Can Impact be Mitigated change to the project site? Impact Impact by Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot n { | •Yes • No of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 i—i ! 1 1 lYes | | No feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. - i i n •Yes • No • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 i i i i •Yes • No feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than n i i •Yes • No one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons i i i i •Yes • No of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. i i u •Yes • No • Construction in a designated floodway. u i i •Yes U No • Other imoacis Bavswater Peakinq Facilitv will be developed on 2 X Yes No acres of vacant land at an existinq industrial site.

2. Will there be an effect to any unique or n n •Yes • No unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., X NO j YES cliffs, dunes, geological) wA • Specific land forms: N/A i i • •Yes • No 7 i 2 3 Small to Moderate Potential Large Can Impact be Mitigated Impact Imnact bv Proiect Chanae IMPACT ON WATER 0 3. Will Pcaposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 1S, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) GO NO ("l YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. |Yes No |— • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a Yes No protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Yes No » Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. n 1—1 Yes No • Other impacts N/A Yes "I No 4. Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? [7] NO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or Yes No more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 1D acres of surface area. Yes No

• Other impacts N/A [jYes No 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? • NO [x] YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. Yes No • 1 •• Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have Yes | No approval to serve proposed (project) action. •. Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 Yes No gallons per minute pumping capacity. • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply ~lYes | No system. • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. Yes _J No

• Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently i 1 Yes No do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. X .xjYes No

• • -Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an Yes No existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical X X Yes ~~1 No products greater than 1,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water Yes No and/or sewer services. • Proposed Action locales commercial and/or industrial uses which may Yes | No require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. • Other imoacts The storaae of Liquid Ammonia may be necessary if additional air pollution control devices are acquired in the future. The material will be stored in tanks with bermed secondary containment. •

8 i 2 3 Small to Moderate Potential Large Can impact bo Mltigatod Impact Impact bv Proioct Channe Yes 1 1 No 6. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water • runoff? GO NO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows [_J Yes _J No • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. u Yes No • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes _J No

• Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. Yes _J No • Otherimpacts N/A [_jYes _J No IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will Proposed Action affect air quality? r~] NO 1 x | YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given Yes No

• Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of Yes | No refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs, per hour or a X | Yes No heal source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed Action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed 1 1 1 1 JYes | No to industrial use. • Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of industrial [ | I""] Yes No development within existing industrial areas. • • Other impacts Even though sources are qreater then 10 million BTU's per hour, the air impacts are insicmificant. fPredicted impacts are less then EPA SIGNIFICANT IMPACT LEVELS.) Yes No u 1 IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? | x | NO | | YES Examples that would apply to column 2 No • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal Yes U list, using the site, over or near the site, or found on the site. • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. _l |Yes | No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than "S Yes ~~] No for agricultural purposes. u —' • Otherimpacts N/A Yes No 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non- - endangered species? 03 NO | | YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or Yes No migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature • Yes No forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. • Other impacts N/A • _|Yes FINO 9 1 2 3 Small to Moderate Potential Largo Can Impact be Mitigated imDact hrmact bv Protect Chanoe

IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND • RESOURCES 10. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? 00 NO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The Proposed Action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural Yes ~] No land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of Yes No agricultural land. • The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of Yes No agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. • The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural | land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff). • Other impacts Nl/A I lY^ No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.) [x] NO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or i I I | I |ves | | No tn sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic Yes | No • resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant Yes No screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. - • Other impacts The peaking facility will be constructed on an existinq area (Zoned M-3) adjacent to the existing KevSoan and Bavswater Facility. See Chapter 2. | Yes No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleonto log leal importance? •

Ixl NO 1 1 YES • Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially Yes No contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the I Yes No project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for _J Yes No archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts The prolect site is totally disturbed by past fillinq aclivilies within the bulkhead limits. Yes No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION • - 10 —

1 ?. 3 Small to Moderate Potential Large Can Impact be Mitigated Impact Impact _ _ by Proiect Chanae 13. Will Proposed Action aftecl the quantity or quality of existing or future ^^^ open spaces or recreational opportunities? ^P |T| NO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent foreclosure o! a future recreational opportunity. [_ Yes _J No

* A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Yes No

• Other impacts N/A Yes No tyPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)? [7] NO • YES Jamaica Bay Sianificant Fish and Wildlife Habitat and State Critical Area is near the existino. functioninq bulkheads. 350 feel from the proposed oroiect site. Best Manaqement Practices and a sediment erosion control olan will be implemented to prevent the effects of sediment and erosion. Pursuant to correspondence from the USFWS and Gateway National Recreation Area - Jamaica Bav National Wildlife Refuoe (See Appendix C) the orooosed oroiect will not have siqnificant effects.

Examples that would apply to column 2 |—[ • Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? Yes _J No flB • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the | Yes "~| No ^^ resource? • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource? Yes No

• Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the Yes No resource? • Other impacts The proposed project will not discharqe into Motts Basin or effect areas outside of the limits of the existino bulkheads. Yes No IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? QO NO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 i—i • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. J Yes No • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. c • Yes _J No • Other impacts N/A Yes No IMPACT ON ENERGY 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? • NO |_xj YES Examples that would apply to column 2 ^^^ • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of D Z]Yes • No SB any form of energy in the municipality.

11 1 2 I 3 Small lo Moderate Potential Large Can Impact be Mitigated Impact Impact bv Protect Chonoo • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy xj |Yes No transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two • family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts The installation of the Jamaica Bay Peakino Facility will increase the oower qeneratino capacity for the L.IPA sen/ed portion of Queens. X Yes No NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the - Proposed Action? [7] NO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. . | Yes No

• Odors will occur routinely {more than one hour per day). [Yes —| No

• Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local Yes ""] No ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • 'Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise Yes No screen, • Other impacts - ( Yes No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? | X | NO I I YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous Yes ~] No substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event • of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any Yes No form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating. infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied natural gas Yes No or other flammable liquids. • Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other disturbance Yes _J No within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous • waste. • Other impacts N/A _jYes No u IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? - 13 NO • YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the Yes No project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will Yes | No increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. U • Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Yes |_J No • Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. u Yes No

• 12 i Small to Moderate Potenliai Large Can Impact be Mitigated £301 Irripact hy Project Charitje Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures Q u QYes or areas, of historic importance to the community. Development will create a demand for additional community services D • • Yes • No (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) Yes Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. • • • • NO Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. • Yes • NO Other impacts The peaking facility will be constructed on an • • exjsting industrial area (Zoned M-3) adjacent to the exisiing KevSaan and Sayswater Facility. See Chapter 2. • • • Yes • No 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts? DO NO • YES

There is not likely to be public controversy since the Jamaica Bay PeaKing Facility will be constructed on an existing industrial area (Zoned M-3) adjacent to the existing KeySpan and Jamaica Bay Facility. The project area has also been in industrial use for power production for more than 45 years. The proposed project is also considered to have not significant environmental impacts as concurred by federal and state resource agencies.

If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If you Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3

13 Appendix C Description of Equipment Pratt & Whitney A Uniied Technologies Company

Pratt A Whitney Power Systems, Inc. Background and Capabilities

Industry Focus Pratt & Whitney Power Systems, Inc. (PWPS), the industrial gas turbine division of Pratt & Whitney, is a leading supplier of industrial power generation and mechanical drive equipment. PWPS manufactures and services industrial gas turbines ranging in size from 400 kW to 60 MW and has an installed base of over 2000 industrial gas turbines. PWPS focuses on customer needs throughout the entire product lifecycle, eliminating the need to use several specialized companies for one project. As a single source provider, PWPS offers a complete line of equipment solutions and integrated services, turnkey installation, and wide-ranging aftermarket support through a single sales channel. Equipment and Service Solutions PWPS provides complete power systems equipment and service solutions including:

^ Gas turbines for various applications (base and peaking, cogeneration, and mechanical drive)

>• Turnkey installation

>• Engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC)

>• Technical training

>- Field services

>• Long-term agreements for repairs, overhauls and upgrades

>• Operation and maintenance agreements >- Spare parts Industrial Gas Turbines PWPS designs, markets, and installs complete power systems built around industrial gas turbines. Since the sale of its first gas turbine for pumping natural gas in October 1960, PWPS has sold gas turbines for a variety of applications. These include electrical power generation, offshore platform power, oil and gas transmission, industrial drives, locomotives and marine propulsion. Combined, these turbines have accumulated hundreds of millions of heavy-duty industrial service hours.

PWPS Proprietary 1 Rev 25-1002 Pratt & Whitney A United Technologies Company

Pratt & Whitney Power Systems, Inc.

By applying the extensive Pratt & Whitney aircraft engine technology to the industrial equipment market, PWPS has set new standards for power and mechanical drive systems.

Over 225 of these systems, involving more than 325 gas turbines have been supplied under turnkey contracts. Each of these included all required components, such as control houses, fuel forwarding skids, electrical generators, and compressors, as well as all engineering services required for installation and initial operation of the system, follow-up service, and support. The largest turnkey installation was for Consolidated Edison at the Astoria generating plant in New York City, where 500,000 KW of gas turbine generating capacity (24 turbines) were installed under a contract that included site preparation and all other related work. PWPS' FT4 series industrial gas turbines have accumulated millions of hours of heavy duty industrial service under all types of conditions, including various base load applications of continuous operation. The FT4 has demonstrated attractive performance, dependability, and life-cycle cost. Evolution of the FT8® In 1986, PWPS began a program to design, develop, and manufacture a technologically advanced, highly efficient Industrial Gas Turbine, the FT8. This gas turbine incorporated many technological features of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D series aircraft engine. The JT8D is one of the most successful jet engines in commercial aviation history, with over 14,000 sold and a total of more than 400 million hours of reliable operation. Today, approximately 200 FT8 gas turbines are currently installed or on order with units in operation on five continents. ency at half load power with no clutch required.

The FT8 is compact, easy to install, and capable of Figure 1: FT8 POWERPAC using a variety of fuels. The gas generator can be changed in less than eight hours due to the modular design of the engine. Similarly, it can be disassembled into its main modules and reassembled in less than four days. As a result of the "designed-in-maintenance" capability, maximum on-line availability will be achieved while reducing maintenance costs. For electrical power generation, the FT8 has two possible configurations: the POWERPAC (Figure 1) or the TWINPAC (Figure 2). In the POWERPAC configuration, a single FT8 gas turbine is used to drive the electric generator. In the TWINPAC version, two FT8 gas turbines are positioned on each end of a larger, double-ended generator. The TWINPAC configuration offers maximum flexibility of operation and provides the ability to operate one gas turbine while the other is shut down. The result is nearly full load efficiency at half load power with no clutch required.

PWPS Proprietary Rev 25-1002 % Pratt & Whitney A United Technologies Company

Pratt & Whitney Power Systems, Inc.

The latest improvement to the FT8 offering is the streamlined SWIFTPAC configuration of 25 and 50 MW. The SWIFTPAC series changes the way PWPS power plants are delivered and installed. The SWIFTPAC units are configured as multi-trailer modular systems with a majority of the units pre- assembled at the factory. Each unit is designed for rapid installation allowing Figure 2: FT8 TWINPAC initial power generation to be achieved within one month upon arriving on site. And with 50% less time required to obtain transportation permits, the SWIFTPAC can be easily moved over highways. The modular package concept of the FT8 configurations, coupled with their relatively small size, allow any configuration to be readily installed in almost any location, ready for connection to the customer's fuel and distribution systems. Proven Reliability

In August 2001, PWPS reached a major milestone as the FT8 fleet surpassed one million hours of operation. Since the first installation in June 1991, the fleet has grown to more than 188 units worldwide in power generation, mechanical drive, and marine applications. PWPS also supports more than 1300 FT4s that have been in operation for 30 years, accumulating hundreds of millions of service hours. Commitment to Quality and Excellence

Quality is the foundation for everything we do. PWPS focuses on continuously improving our products and processes to deliver the performance and reliability our customers expect. This commitment was further validated when Underwriters Laboratory, Inc. certified Pratt & Whitney to ISO 9001 standards. A copy of the certification follows this page. We are taking those standards even further with a program called Achieving Competitive Excellence (ACE). It is a comprehensive initiative to incorporate quality into everything we do - on the factory floor and in the offices. Through our commitment to quality and excellence, Pratt & Whitney Power Systems stands at the forefront of the industry by anticipating the challenges of a constantly changing power market and developing innovative products and solutions to meet each new challenge.

PWPS Proprietary Rev 25-1002 MDEHW8ITERS LABORATORIES IMC r f I T m A t- i o ^ Pratt & Whitney 400 Main Street East Hartford, CT 06108 (See lha Certificate Addendum for off-site faclflties)

Underwriters LaboraJories Inc.® (UL) Issues Ws certificate to the Firm named above, after assessing the Firm's quatity system and finding ft in compfianco v/fth 180 9001:1994 EN ISO 9001:19^4; BS EN ISO 9001:1994; ANSI/ASQC 09001:1994

for the following scope of registration

3724 (US): Aircraft Engines and Engine Parts

The design and manufacture of jet ongino and rocket propulsion systems for aerospace, industrial, and marine application, spare parts, retroflt kfts, training devices/services, technical manuals, overhaul and repair of engines/components, and support of customer field operations. (See the Certificate Addendum for continuation of Scope of Registration)

This quality system rsgistratton Is Included in UL's btrectory of Registered Firms and apptes to the provision of goods andtor services as specified in the scope of registfatlpn from the acldfDss

File Number A8559 Volume: 1 Issue Date: August 26,1999 Revision Date: August 16,2001 Renewal Date: August 26,2003

IS. Joe Bhatia Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer - International

Road vow 1 Acoecffiotes Appendix D Agency Correspondence Faxed 10/30/02

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 3817LukerRoad Cortland,NY 13045

October 30, 2002

Mr. David R. De Caro Project Scientist CH2M Hill 1700 Market Street, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103-3916

Dear Mr. De Caro:

This responds to your letter of October 10, 2002, requesting information on the presence of endangered or threatened species in the vicinity of the proposed Jamaica Bay Energy Center between Mott Avenue and Motts Basin in the Borough of Queens, Queens County, New York. Except for occasional transient individuals, no Federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species under our jurisdiction are known to exist in the project impact area. In addition, no habitat in the project impact area is currently designated or proposed "critical habitat" in accordance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Therefore, no Biological Assessment or further Section 7 consultation ' under the Endangered Species Act is required with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Should project plans change, or if additional information on listed or proposed species or critical habitat becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered.

The above comments pertaining to endangered species under our jurisdiction are provided pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. This response does not preclude additional Service comments under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act or other legislation.

Federally listed endangered and threatened marine species may be found near the project area. These species are under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service. You should contact Mr. Stanley Gorski, Habitat and Protected Resources Division, Area Coordinator, National Marine Fisheries Service, James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory, 74 Magruder Road, Highlands, NJ 07732, for additional information (telephone: [732] 872-3037). For additional information on fish and wildlife resources or State-listed species, we suggest you contact the appropriate New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regional office(s) as shown on the enclosed map, and: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York Natural Heritage Program Information Services 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233 (518)402-8935 Since wetlands may be present, you are advised that National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps may or may not be available for the project area. However, while the NWI maps are reasonably accurate, they should not be used in lieu of field surveys for determining the presence of wetlands or delineating wetland boundaries for Federal regulatory purposes. Copies of specific NWI maps can be obtained from:

Cornell Institute for Resource Information Systems 302 Rice Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 (607) 255-4864

Work in certain waters and wetlands of the United States may require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). If a permit is required, in reviewing the application pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Service may concur, with or without stipulations, or recommend denial of the permit depending upon the potential adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources associated with project implementation. The need for a Corps permit may be determined by contacting the appropriate Corps office(s) as shown on the enclosed map.

If you require additional information please contact Michael Stoll at (607) 753-9334.

Sincerely,

Acting For o David A. Stilwell Field Supervisor Enclosure cc: NYSDEC, Long Island City, NY (Environmental Permits) NYSDEC, Albany, NY (Natural Heritage Program) NMFS, Highlands, NJ (Attn: S. Gorski) NMFS, Milford, CT (Attn: M. Ludwig) COE, New York, NY United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Gateway National Recreation Area Headquarters Building 69 INRKPLVRfKLKTO Floyd Bennett Field Brooklyn, N.Y. 11234 D22(GATE-JBU)

October 28, 2002

Mr. David R. De Caro Project Scientist CH2M HILL 1700 Market Street, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103-3916

Dear Mr. De Caro:

This is in response to your letter of October 10, 2002, regarding the construction and operation of a proposed gas and oil fired power generating facility adjacent to Mott Basin in Queens, New York. Much of Jamaica Bay, including the Wildlife Refuge, falls within the jurisdictional boundary of Gateway National Recreation Area. We cannot comment for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

As stated in our March 21, 2001 letter to your organization, the National Park Service has no objection to the proposed project. We continue, however, to reserve the right to review any and all environmental compliance analysis and documentation as it becomes available through Federal NEPA process or the State/City SEQRA process.

Thank you for continuing to keep the National Park Service informed as the planning for this project progresses. Please contact Assistant Superintendent Dave Avrin at (718) 338-3625, if you have any additional questions regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

Billy G. Garrett -f^uperintendent Jamaica Bay Unit iCtOH.

|9 K | New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation f ^^^^ 5 Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau NEW YOBKSTATE i Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643 Bemadette Castro Commissioner October 29, 2002

David R. DeCaro CH2M Hill 1700 Market Street, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-3916

Re: PSC Florida Power & Light/Gas Power Plant/Far Rockaway, Motts Basin Queens, Queens County 01PR00785

Dear Mr. DeCaro:

Thank you for requesting the comments of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). We have reviewed the project in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

Based upon this review, it is the SHPO's opinion that your project will have No Effect upon cultural resources in or eligible for inclusion in the National Registers of Historic Places.

If further correspondence is required regarding this project, please be sure to refer to the OPRHP Project Review (PR) number noted above.

Sincerely,

Ruth L. Pierpont Director

RLP:cmp

An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency W printed on recycled paper Consultation with Native American Tribes

The New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is often contacted with questions about appropriate consultation with Native American tribes. The SHPO can provide the following inlormation to assist with tribal consultation.

Federal agencies are required to consult with appropriate Native Amencan tribes for any undertaking that requires compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

The Section 106 implementing regulations, 36 CFR 800. were revised on December 12, 2000. In accordance with these revisions, in particular Section 800.2(c)(2)(ii). federal agencies must consult with any Native Amencan tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by an undertaking. This requirement applies regardless of the location of the historic property.

It is the responsibility of the federal agency official to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify Native Amencan tnbes that should be consulted in the Section 106 process. A list of federally recognized tnbes and maps of Native American

lands are available from the Bureau of Indian Affairs at www.dni.L>ov/hiaAnhal!.ovi.htm. (This website currently clown, contact'Daisy West by fax at 202-208-4595 with requests for list, provide e-mail address for response.) Also, a list of Tnbal Historic Preservation Offices (THPO) is available from the National Park Service at www2.cr.nps.gov/tribal/thpo.htm.

it is the responsibility of the federal agency official to ensure that consultation in the Section 106 process provides Native American tribes with a reasonable opportunity to identify their concerns about historic properties, advise on the identification and evaluation of histonc properties, including those of traditional religious and cultural importance, articulate their views on the undertaking's effects on such properties, and participate in the resolution of adverse effects (Section 800.2(c)(2)fii)(A)).

To request information on properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to Native Amencans it is necessary to contact the appropnate tribe or tribes directly. The SHPO does not conduct these types of property evaluations, which are more appropriately the purview of the Native American tribes.

For federal agency projects, additional guidance or procedures regarding consultation with Native Amencan tribes should be available from the Federal Agency Preservation Officer. For projects in which application is being made for funding or ' permits rrom a federal agency, inquiry as to that agency-s procedures for consultation with Native Amencan tribes may be appropnate.

The SHPO provides this information in order to assist with the satisfactory implementation of the new resulations. Phone Response CH2MHILL TELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD

Call To: Gregory D'onofrio

Phone No.: (518)237-8643 Date: October 15, 2002

Call From: David De Caro Time: 9:05 AM

Message Taken By: David De Caro Subject: FPLE - Jamaica Bay Project - NYHPO Review

Mr. D'onofro stated that he had completed the initial project review and determined that the project will not effect any federal, state or local listed historic structures. He indicated that Doug Mackey would be completing a review of archaeological resources for the project site and this may take upto 2-3 weeks because of Mr. Mackeys current backlog.

He suggested that Mr. Mackey be contacted directly inorder expedite the review of the project.

PHU101602_NYHPO-DONOFRIO-TELECON.DOC CH2MHILL TELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD

Call To: Doug Mackey

Phone No.: 518 237 8643 Date: October 18. 2002

Call From: David De Caro Time: 03:12 PM

Message Taken By: David DeCaro/PHL Subject: FPLE - Jamaica Bay Project - NYHPO - Doug Mackey Conversation

Doug Mackey stated that he would send out a letter on Monday, October 21, 2002 that the proposed Jamaica Bay project would have No Impact upon cultural resources in or eligible for inclusion in the State or National Registers for Historic Places.

PHU10ie02.NYHPO-TELCON.DOC CH2MHILL TELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD

Call To: Diane Rusanowsky

Phone No. (203) 882-6571 Date: October 21, 2002

Call From: David De Caro Time: 12:55 PM

Message Taken By: Dave DeCaro/PHL Subject: Jamaica Bay - National Marine Fisheries Services Response

Ms. Rusanowsky stated that because no federally regulated activities are being proposed a response from National Marine Fisheries Services is not required. If a change to the proposed project occurs then a Section 7 consultation may be required.

PHU102102_NMFS.TELCON.DOC Phone Conversation Memorandum

Date: 11/4/2002

To: Jessica Wollmuth Cc: Steve Zarlinski

From: David R. De Caro

RE: Jamaica Bay - Gina Santucci, NY City Landmarks

I spoke with Gina Santucci on October 31,2002 and she stated that NYC Landmark Preservation Commission would accept the review of the NY Historic Preservation Office since the project is in the SEQR process.

ORE*

ts';

42/4/2002 Confidential Appendix E Health and Safety Plan •

@ FPL Energy JAMAICA BAY PEAKING FACILITY

FAR ROCKAWAY, NY

•

CONTRACTOR HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

• • @ FPL Energy

HEALTH. SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT INFORMATION AND DESCRIPTION

EMERGENCY CONTACTS

MAPS TO NEAREST HOSPITALS AND POLICE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION

1.1 Pre-Constmction Site Preparation • 1.2 Unit Assembly, Utility Connections and Site Finish 1.3 Start-Uo and Testing

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

2.1 Site DescriDtion 2.2 Hazardous Materials 2.3 Air Quality 2.4 Noise 2.5 Vibration 2.6 Erosion and Sediment Control

3.0 PROJECT HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICY

3.1 Health and Safety Policy 3.2 Definition of Terms 3.3 Objective

4.0 CONSTRUCTION HEALTH AND SAFETY PLANNING

4.1 Program Organization 4.2 Areas of Responsibility 4.3 Competence / Skills 4.4 Specific Health and Safety Requirements # 4.5 Potential Health and Safety Hazards

Page3 # FPL Energy

HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

5.0 CONTRACTOR SCREENING AND APPROVAL

5.1 Identify Job Safety Requirements 5.2 Select Qualified Bidders 5.3 Pre-Bid and Post Quote Meetings 5.4 Contractor Selection

6.0 ON-SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PROGRAMS

6.1 Health and Safety Programs 6.2 Safety Meetings 6.3 Safety Orientations 6.4 Safety Inspection and Audits 6.5 Jobsite Entry and Security Requirements 6.6 Accident Reporting and Investigation 6.7 Reporting Safety Performance 6.8 Communications • 6.9 Training 6.10 Housekeeping 6.11 Fire Protection and Hot Work Permits 6.12 Site Emergencies 6.13 Health Requirements 6.14 Personal Protective Equipment 6.15 Decontamination Procedures 6.16 Mobile and Lifting Equipment 6.17 Electrical 6.18 Fall Protection 6.19 Hazard Communications 6.20 Substance Abuse 6.21 Safety Documentation 6.22 Environmental Practices

Page 4 FPL. Energy

HEALTH. SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

PROJECT INFORMATION AND DESCRIPTION OWNER: Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC ADDRESS: 1425 Bay 24,h St, Far Rockaway NY 11691 PROJECT / SITE NAME: Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility SITE ADDRESS: 1425 Bay 24,h Street, Far Rockaway, NY DATE SAFETY, HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN PREPARED: October 9, 2002 DATES OF SITE WORK: October 2002 - August 2003 SITE ACCESS: 1425 Bay 24th Street Far Rockaway, NY SITE SIZE: 4 acres SITE TOPOGRAPHY: This site is relatively flat open grassy area. SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is located adjacent to the existing KeySpan Power Plant facility and Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility located at 1425 Bay 24th Street in Far Rockaway, New York. The first generating units at the site area (Keyspan) began operation in the 1920's and now only contain the 100- megawatt Far Rockaway Power Station, Unit 4. To the north of the Jamaica Bay project site is the newly constructed Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, consisting of a natural gas compressor and two gas turbine generators. The project site is located in an industrial zone (M-3) adjacent to a residential area (Bay 28,h Street and Faber Terrace) and Motts Basin off Jamaica Bay. The majority of the site is located in a bulkhead area. An old coal uploading/conveyor facility is immediately east of the project site. A new sheet pile bulkhead is located along the north side of the property. The existing bulkhead is located on the west side of the project site. Beneath the Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility site is a discharge pipe for the existing KeySpan Energy Far Rockaway Power Plant. The project being installed for operation for Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC consists of one natural gas-fired only Pratt & Whitney FT-8 or Swift-Pac turbine unit that will produce a total of 46 MW of electricity for the Long Island Power Authority grid. A Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessment was conducted on-site by the Long Island Power Authority in 2001. One area of concern identified in the assessment involved an historic coal pile area long since removed. The Phase II sampling found several metals that exceeded the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) Technical and Administrative Guidance Document (#4046) soil cleanup objective regulatory limits. However, not all metals exceeded the maximum Eastern USA Background concentration limits indicating they could be representative of naturally occurring metals in the area. Only one metal, mercury, slightly exceeded both State and Federal limits. In addition, lead was detected in a groundwater sample that slightly exceeded New York groundwater limits.

Page 5 FPL Energy

HEALTH. SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

EMERGENCY CONTACTS MEDICAL

Medical Emergency - Call 911

St Johns Episcopal Hospital -(718) 869-7000 Peninsula Hospital Center- (718) 734-2000 Exclusive Ambulette Service - (718) 327-5500 A&B's Dial-A-Van - (718) 474-8301 NYC Poison Control Center- (212) 340-5300

FIRE

Fire/ Spill Emergency - Call 911

Far Rockaway Fire Department - (718) 847-6600, (718)634-7967

SECURITY & POLICE

Security & Police Emergency - Call 911

NYC Far Rockaway lOI8' Precinct - (718) 868-3400

UTILITIES

Gas Emergency - KeySpan Energy - (718) 403-1000 Electricity Emergency - KeySpan Energy - (718) 327-8100

OTHER EMERGENCY AGENCIES

Rockaway Health Department - (718) 474-2100 Queens Borough Health Department - (718) 286-2680 NYC Health Department - (212) 788-5300 NYC Office of Emergency Management - (212) 442-9260 NYC Department of Environmental Protection - (718) 595-7000

LOCAL OFFICIALS

Local Community Board #11 - (718) 225-1054 Queens Borough President's Office - (718) 286-3000 Public School 104 - (718) 327-1910 NYC School District- (718)935-3910

Page 6 FPL Energy

HEALTH. SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Construction activities at the Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility site generally would fall within the following three phases: Pre-construction site preparation (which includes site clearing, grading, auger drilling for foundations pilings, and construction of the equipment pads and foundations); Construction and assembly of modular and non-modular components, utility connections and site finish ; and Start-up and testing. All construction related work would be completed by the July 2003. The maximum number of workers on site is estimated to be approximately 150 workers during construction. Construction and worker parking will be on-site and off-site. With regard to hazardous materials, this Health and Safety Plan will be implemented during construction to mitigate possible exposure of construction workers, nearby residents, and others in the area to any contaminants in the soil, air or groundwater on site. This Health and Safety Plan defines worker safety training and monitoring procedures, personal protective equipment, air monitoring equipment, action levels, and appropriate protective measures. Excavated materials will be removed from the site and disposed of in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. These measures eliminate the probability of hazardous materials impacts during construction. Fugitive dust emissions resulting from, earth movement, wind erosion, and traffic over unpaved areas will be minimized and appropriate fugitive dust control measures including watering of exposed areas and dust covers for trucks will be employed to mitigate such impacts. As a result, no significant air quality impacts from fugitive dust emissions are anticipated.

Page 10