DOCSLIB.ORG

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (The Applicant), Columbia, South Carolina, for the Virgil C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (The Applicant), Columbia, South Carolina, for the Virgil C A - - i SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This Final Environmental Statement was prepared by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing. 1. This action is administrative. 2. The proposed action is the issuance of a construction permit to the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (the Applicant), Columbia, South Carolina, for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit I (the Summer Station), a power reactor located in Fairfield County, S.C., 26 miles northwest of Columbia, S.C., and 1 mile east of the Broad River, near Parr, South Carolina (Docket No. 50-395). Unit I will employ a pressurized water reactor to produce up to 2775 megawatts thermal (MWt). A steam turbine-generator will use this heat to provide 900 MW (net) of electrical power capacity. A "stretch" power level of 2914 MWt is considered in the assessments contained in this statement. The exhaust steam will be cooled and condensed by once-through flow of water from Monticello Reservoir, a 6800-acre reservoir to be created by the Applicant for operating a proposed pumped storage hydroelectric station near the nuclear station. Although the Summer Station is to be constructed as a closely related part of the Applicant's pumped storage project, for the purpose of this statement only the environmental impacts of construction and operation at the nuclear generating station are evaluated. At this time, the Federal Power Commission is conducting an environmental review of the construction and operation of the Fairfield Pumped Storage Hydrostation (FPC No. 1894). These two environmental statements, together, will cover the overall environmental impact of the construction and operation of the conglomerate. 3. Summary of environmental impacts and adverse and beneficial effects: a. Electrical generating capacity will be added which will support economic growth of the area served by the Applicant. Jobs will be created during construction and operation of the Summer Station and economic assistance provided to the county and communities in taxes paid by the Applicant. ii b. About 200 acres of land (principally softwood forest) will be reassigned from present use to the construction site of the Summer Station. c. About 1850 acres of forest, farmland and urban property will be used as rights-of-way for the transmission lines. d. About 530,000 gallons per minute (gpm) will be recirculated from Monticello Reservoir for condensing turbine exhaust steam. This water, heated to about 25°F above lake temperature will produce a shallow thermal plume of about 230 acres having a temperature greater than 5°F above lake ambient tempera- ture. e. A small increase in fogging potential will exist during operation during the winter months along the shorelines of Monticello Reservoir. f. Small quantities of chemical wastes will be discharged to Monticello Reservoir. Concentrations will be such that no measurable detrimental effects are anticipated. g. As much as 33,000 tons of plankton in Monticello Reservoir could perish each year from passage through the turbine exhaust steam condenser, but the overall impact is small because the plankton regenerate quickly. h. A small quantity of radioactive materials will be discharged to the environment, resulting in no significant environmental impacts. The estimated dose to the population projected for the year 1980 is 15 man-rem/yr. i. The risk associated with accidental radiation exposure is very low. 4. The principal alternatives considered: a. Purchasing power from outside sources b. Locating the Summer Station at another site c. Using fossil fuels for .a power station at the same site d. Employing alternative cooling methods. iii 5. Comments on the Draft Environmental Statement were received from the agencies and organizations listed below and have been con- sidered in the preparation of the Final Environmental Statement. Copies of these comments are included as Appendix C and discussed in Section XII. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Department of Army, Corps of Engineers Department of Commerce Department of Health, Education and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency Governor of the State of South Carolina 6. This statement was made available to the public, to the Council on Environmental Quality and to other agencies in January 1972. 7. On the basis of the evaluation set forth in this Final Statement and after weighing the environmental, technical, economic and other benefits of Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit I against environmental costs and considering available alternatives, it is concluded that the action called for under NEPA and Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 is the issuance of a construction permit for the facility subject to the following conditions for protection of the environment: a) The Applicant will perform preoperational measurements of the physical, chemical and biological parameters of the environment to establish baseline conditions upon which possible adverse effects of the station can beevaluated. b) The Applicant will submit to the Staff a proposed plan for an operational environmental monitoring program. Staff approval of this plan will be obtained prior to the granting of an operating license. c) The Applicant shall select, design and construct the trans- mission lines in accordance with appropriate federal guidelines. d) The Applicant shall use appropriate federal and state guide- lines and regulations in.matters concerning sanitation in recreational areas to be constructed as part of this project. iv e) The objective of the station design shall be such that the release of radioiodines to the environment is controlled so that the Staff's projected annual exposure to the 2-gram thyroid organ of a child will not exceed 5 millirems. 8. As stated earlier, the construction and operation of the proposed Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit I is a closely related action to the construction and operation of the proposed Fairfield pumped storage hydro plant in that the nuclear facility will use the upper impoundment of the hydroelectric plant as a source of cooling water. The proposed impoundment, which will become known as Monticello Reservoir, has, therefore, a dual purpose. Since the Fairfield pumped storage hydroelectric plant will require licensing and environmental review by the Federal Power Commission, the Atomic Energy Commission in its environmental review has assumed the existence of the Monticello Reservoir. This Statement, therefore, evaluates the discharge of heat and of chemical and radioactive effluents to the Reservoir as a consequence of the operation of Summer Station, but does not consider the environmental factors asso- ciated with its initial construction or which are a direct conse- quence 6f its operation as an upper impoundment of a pumped storage hydroelectric plant. The Applicant has indicated that if for any reason he should at a later date elect not to complete the Fairfield project as presently described, he would still plan to construct the Summer Station at the proposed site, but would employ a different method of cooling in the absence of Monticello Reservoir. If this were to occur, the Atomic Energy Commission would require the Applicant to amend its Environmental Report to include the new method of cooling the Summer Station. The Staff would then conduct such evaluation as required at that point in time. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Pag~e SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............. ................... LIST OF FIGURES .............. ................ ....... xi LIST OF TABLES ......... ................. xiv FOREWORD ..... ............... ................ .... xvii I. INTRODUCTION ............. .................... I-i A. SITE SELECTION .............. ................. !- B. APPLICATIONS AND APPROVALS ... ........... .. 1-2 II. THE SITE ..... ........................... II-i A. GENERAL .. .......... .................. II-i B. LOCATION GEOGRAPHY ............ ............... I- C. REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND USE .. ........ .. 11-6 D.. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE .......... .............. ... 11-15 E. ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ....... ............. .. 11-16 1. General Terrain Characteristics .... ....... 11-16 2. Geology ............ ................... .. 11-16 3. Surface Water .......... ................ 11-17 a. Streams .......... ................. .. 11-17 (1) Hydrologic Description .. ....... .. 11-17 (2) River Water Quality ... ......... .. 11-18 b. Monticello Reservoir ..... .......... 11-21 (1) Hydrologic Description .. ....... .. 11-21 (2) Water Quality ...... ............ .. 11-21 4. Ground Water ........... ................ 11-23 5. Meteorology .................... 11-24 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page F. ECOLOGY OF SITE AND ENVIRONS ... .......... .. 11-26 1. Terrestrial Ecology ...... ............. .. 11-26 2. Aquatic Ecology ........ ............... .. 11-27 a. Plankton ........ ................ 11-27 b. Benthos .......... ................. 11-28 c. Fish ................................. .. 11-29 d. Endangered Species 11............I-31 III. THE STATION ................. ..................... III-, A. EXTERNAL APPEARANCE ............ ............... III-, B. TRANSMISSION LINES ........... ........ ........ 111-3 C. REACTOR AND STEAM-ELECTRIC SYSTEM ... ........ .. 111-8 D. EFFLUENT SYSTEMS ................. ............ III-,, 1. Heat ................. .................... III_,, a. General..................IIIll b. Condenser Cooling Water ...... ........
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Disclosure Report
    ANNUAL DISCLOSURE REPORT of the LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (FISCAL YEAR 2020) This Annual Disclosure Report does not constitute an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. The information set forth herein has been furnished by the Authority and LIPA and includes information obtained from other sources, all of which are believed to be reliable. The information and expressions of opinion contained herein are subject to change without notice and nothing herein shall, under any circumstances, create any implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the Authority, LIPA, PSEG, PSEG Long Island, National Grid or Exelon since the date hereof. Such information and expressions of opinion are made for the purpose of providing information to prospective investors and are not to be used for any other purpose or relied on by any other party. This Annual Disclosure Report contains statements which, to the extent they are not recitations of historical fact, constitute “forward-looking statements.” In this respect, the words “estimate,” “project,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “intend,” “believe” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. A number of important factors affecting the Authority’s and LIPA’s business and financial results could cause actual results to differ materially from those stated in the forward-looking statements. References to website addresses presented herein are for informational purposes only and may be in the form of a hyperlink solely for the reader’s convenience. Unless specified otherwise, such websites and the information or links contained therein are not incorporated into, and are not part of, this Annual Disclosure Report.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-2028 Comprehensive Reliability Plan
    2019-2028 Comprehensive Reliability Plan A Report from the New York Independent System Operator Draft Report for April 12, 2019 ESPWG/TPAS Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 RELIABILITY PLANNING PROCESS FINDINGS FOR 2019-2028 ................................................................................................ 8 Finding One – Resource Adequacy .............................................................................................. 8 Finding Two – Transmission Security ........................................................................................... 8 Finding Three – Plan Risk Factors and Highlights of Potential Developments ......................... 8 PEAKER RULE SCENARIO .................................................................................................................................................... 14 Con Edison Assessment ............................................................................................................. 15 Year 2023 ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 Year 2025 .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • E,XTENSIONS of REMARKS SENATOR JENNINGS RANDOLPH Our Citizens and the Quality of Our En­ Anticipated, However, and in Recent DISCUSSES INADEQUACY of the Vironment
    September 2, 1970 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 30753 E,XTENSIONS OF REMARKS SENATOR JENNINGS RANDOLPH our citizens and the quality of our en­ anticipated, however, and in recent DISCUSSES INADEQUACY OF THE vironment. years, there was a reluctance in many FEDERAL RESEARCH, DEVELOP­ Securing adequate supplies of fuels, cases to develop alternative sources of oil MENT, AND DEMONSTRATION EF­ particularly coal, for the next 5 years is or coal production. The required new FORTS ON METHOD TO CONTROL one of the most pressing problems facing mines were not capitalized and opened AND ABATE POLLUTION RESULT­ many electric utilities. to the extent originally envisioned. This ING FROM FUELS AND ENERGY During the past 18 months fuel stocks is part of the fuels crisis that has PRODUCTION-THE ENVIRON­ have reportedly slipped from sufficient developed. MENT IMPACT OF FUELS AND EN­ coal for at least 90 days' operation to Abundant supplies of coal and other ERGY PRODUCTION ARE UNAC­ quantities sufficient for only about 40 fossil fuels are in the ground; our short­ CEPTABLE days' operation. The causes contributing coming is our capacity to extract these to this serious problem were reported in resources from the earth and convert the April 18 issue of Business Week mag­ them into electricity and deliver the en­ HON. JENNINGS RANDOLP~ azine. They include a willingness of the ergy to the ultimate consumer. OF WEST VIRGINIA Japanese to pay high coal prices, a short­ Accustomed to doubling electric gen­ IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES age of railway hopper cars, wildcat erating capacity every decade, we have Tuesday, September 1, 1970 strikes, and the impact of the Coal Mine lost sight of the fact that today this Health and Safety Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Via Hand Delivery
    J ATTORNEYS AT LAW\ PLLC 1600 LAIDLEYTOWER EO.BOX 553 CHARLESTON,WESTVIRGINIA 25322 *TELEPHONE 304-340-1000 *TELECOPIER: 304-340-1 I30 wJacksonkelkcorn DIRECT TELEPHONE: (304) 340-1214 DIRECT TELECOPIER (304) 340-1080 E-Mail: snchambersldiacksonkellv.com State Bar No. 694 May 26,2009 Via Hand Delivery Ms. Sandra Squire Executive Secretary Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks Street Charleston, West Virginia 25301 Re: CASE NO. 09-0360-E-CS Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in Mineral County, West Virginia. Dear Ms. Squire: Enclosed for filing on behalf of Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC in the above-styled case are an original and twelve copies of Direct Testimony of the following: 1. James D. Barnes 2. Randall A. Childs 3. Terrence J. DeWan 4. David Friend 5. Paul Kerlinger 6. Kathryn M. Kuranda 7. William E. Llewellyn 8. Jeffrey H. Maymon 9. Mike Sponsler 10. Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. {C1547103.1} Clarksburg, WV Martinsburg, WV Morgantown, WV Wheeling, WV Denver, CO Lexington, KY Pittsburgh, PA Washington, D.C. Ms. Sandra Squire May 26,2009 Page 2 Please advise if you have any questions. Sincerely, SNC/dmb Enclosures cc: John R. Auville, Esq. (w/enc.) Bradley W. Stephens, Esq. (wlenc.) Vincent Trivelli, Esq. (w/enc.) James M. Cookman (w/enc.) David K. Friend (w/enc.) Jennie Henthorn (w/enc.) {C 1453 103.1} PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON Case No.
    [Show full text]
  • Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country
    September 2005 Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country NCPIRG Education Fund Made in the U.S.A. Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country September 2005 NCPIRG Education Fund Acknowledgements Written by Supryia Ray, Clean Air Advocate with NCPIRG Education Fund. © 2005, NCPIRG Education Fund The author would like to thank Alison Cassady, Research Director at NCPIRG Education Fund, and Emily Figdor, Clean Air Advocate at NCPIRG Education Fund, for their assistance with this report. To obtain a copy of this report, visit our website or contact us at: NCPIRG Education Fund 112 S. Blount St, Ste 102 Raleigh, NC 27601 (919) 833-2070 www.ncpirg.org Made in the U.S.A. 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary...............................................................................................................4 Background: Toxic Mercury Emissions from Power Plants ..................................................... 6 The Bush Administration’s Mercury Regulations ................................................................... 8 Findings: Power Plant Mercury Emissions ........................................................................... 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by State........................................................................ 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by County and Zip Code ............................................... 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by Facility.................................................................... 15 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by Company
    [Show full text]
  • Piscivory and Prey Size Selection in Young- Of-The-Year Bluefish: Predator Preference Or Size-Dependent Capture Success?
    MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 114: 59-69,1994 Published November 3 Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1 Piscivory and prey size selection in young- of-the-year bluefish: predator preference or size-dependent capture success? Francis Juanes*,David 0. Conover Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York. Stony Brook. New York 11794-5000, USA ABSTRACT: Young-of-the-year bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix become piscivorous at a very small size/age. When feeding on Atlantic silversides Menidia menidia in the laboratory, bluefish forage in groups and, unlike many other piscivores, tend to attack their prey tail-first. Attack distances, times and velocities as well as attack rates were not size-dependent Handling tlmes and attack success rates, howcver, were strongly determined by both predator and prey slze When given a choice of silverside sizes, all bluefish sizes consumed primarily small prey. These results suggest that bluefish attack all prey sizes upon encounter but capture primarily small prey. Size selectivity may be a passive process mediated by differential size-based capture success KEY WORDS: Piscivory . Prey size selection Foraging theory . Capture success . Bluefish INTRODUCTION prey are preferentially consumed (Brooks & Dodson 1965, Werner & Hall 1974), while others have shown As fish grow they tend to broaden the size range of the reverse (Bence & Murdoch 1986, Walton et al. prey items they ingest, thus increasing the average 1992). Confer & O'Bryan (1989) demonstrated that size size of prey consumed. This increase in prey size has selectivities of planktivorous fish depend on whether been attributed to ontogenetic (and often allometric) feeding is averaged over short or long time periods.
    [Show full text]
  • Norwalk Power Economic Impact Analysis City of Norwalk & Manresa Association
    NORWALK POWER ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF NORWALK & MANRESA ASSOCIATION FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Photo Credit: Geoffrey Steadman 12/14/18 Table of Contents Introduction...........................................................................1 Summary of Findings................................................................3 Section 1: Context and Reuse Planning....................................7 Section 2: Site Characteristics & History.................................11 Section 3: Remediation Analysis.............................................19 Section 4: Natural Resources..................................................31 Section 5: Economic Development Profile...............................37 Section 6: Community Perspective........................................45 Section 7: Development Constraints......................................53 Section 8: Reuse Options........................................................59 Section 9: Remedial Strategies & Cost Estimate...................77 Section 10: Recommended Redevelopment Concepts.........81 Section 11: Implementation Plan...........................................91 Appendix................................................................................95 Introduction Manresa Island is comprised of two parcels that occupy approximately 144 acres of Norwalk’s shoreline. In 1960, a power plant was commissioned on the southern parcel by Connecticut Light & Power. The plant begun operations as a coal fired plant but was converted to oil in 1972. In 1999, the
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Cooling Water Capacity Utilization, Electric
    New York State Department of Environmental Conservation The Relationship between Cooling Water Capacity Utilization, Electric Generating Capacity Utilization, and Impingement and Entrainment at New York State Steam Electric Generating Facilities Technical Document William C. Nieder, Biologist II (Ecology) Steam Electric Unit Bureau of Habitat Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources Albany, NY 12233 July 2010 Citations This report was prepared by: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Bureau of Habitat Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233 This report is a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Technical Document and should be cited in the literature in the following manner: Nieder, W.C. 2010. The Relationship between Cooling Water Capacity Utilization, Electric Generating Capacity Utilization, and Impingement and Entrainment at New York State Steam Electric Generating Facilities. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Technical Document. Albany, NY. July 2010. Page 1 of 27 Abstract Throughout New York State, many industrial facilities operate cooling water intake structures and use large volumes of surface waters for cooling machinery or for condensing steam. The steam electric generating industry uses the largest percentage of this cooling water: up to 17 billion gallons per day. The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and 6 NYCRR § 704.5 requires that the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the “best technology available” (BTA) to minimize adverse environmental impact (i.e., impingement and entrainment). Understanding the relationship between cooling water use, electric generation and the associated adverse environmental impact is critical to determining how this impact can be minimized by managing flow and generation at a facility.
    [Show full text]
  • LONG ISLAND SOUND Coastal Management Program
    LONG ISLAND SOUND Coastal Management Program your coast, your future The preparation of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program was financially aided by a federal grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The New York State Coastal Management Program is administered by the New York State Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization, 41 State Street, Albany, New York 12231. January 1999 Table of Contents List of Tables .............................................................iv List of Maps ..............................................................iv INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 1 Chapter 1 CHARTING the COURSE .............................................. 3 A VISION FOR LONG ISLAND SOUND ................................. 3 The Developed Coast .............................................. 3 The Natural Coast ................................................. 4 The Public Coast .................................................. 5 The Working Coast ................................................ 6 IMPLEMENTING THE VISION ......................................... 6 Chapter 2 LONG ISLAND SOUND COASTAL BOUNDARY ......................... 7 Chapter 3 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 13 THE DEVELOPED COAST ............................................ 13 Developed Coast
    [Show full text]
  • Information for Vpdes Permit Renewal Application Clean
    GP Big Island, LLC INFORMATION FOR VPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 316(B) COMPLIANCE VPDES PERMIT VA0003026 Big Island Mill – Big Island, VA October 2019 Revised November 2019 Information for VPDES Permit Renewal Application - CWA Section 316(b) Compliance GP Big Island, LLC – Big Island, VA VPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION INFORMATION FOR 316(B) COMPLIANCE Prepared for: GP Big Island, LLC Todd R. Boykin, PE (VA) 9363 Lee Jackson Highway Principal Engineer Big Island, VA 24526 Prepared by: Arcadis U.S., Inc. 9954 Mayland Drive Suite 2400 Richmond Virginia 23233 Tel 804 740 0181 Fax 804 217 8292 Date: October 2019 Revised November 2019 This document is intended only for the use of the individual or entity for which it was prepared and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this document is strictly prohibited. arcadis.com Information for VPDES Permit Renewal Application - CWA Section 316(b) Compliance GP Big Island, LLC – Big Island, VA CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 1 2 SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA [§122.21(r)(2)] ........................................................................... 3 2.1 Description of the Source Water Body............................................................................................ 3 2.1.1 James River ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Approval of the Annual Report to the Board on the Resource Planning, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Policy
    FOR CONSIDERATION July 25, 2018 TO: The Board of Trustees FROM: Thomas Falcone REQUEST: Approval of the Annual Report to the Board on the Resource Planning, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Policy Requested Action The Board of Trustees of the Long Island Power Authority (the “Board”) is requested to adopt a resolution finding that the Long Island Power Authority and its subsidiary, LIPA (collectively the “Authority”) have complied with the Board Policy on Resource Planning, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (the “Policy”) for the period since the last annual review, and approving the annual report for the Policy, which resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. Background By Resolution No.1372, dated July 26, 2017, the Board adopted the Policy. The Policy sets objectives for resource planning, power supply procurement, portfolio management, and energy efficiency programs t hat support the Authority’s mission and the State’s clean energy goals. The Policy also establishes regular performance reporting by Staff to enable the Board to assess performance against the objectives of the Policy. Compliance with the Policy Staff concludes that the Authority has complied with the objectives of the Policy for the period since the last annual review for the reasons set forth below. Planning The Policy states “Planning for and maintaining a power supply portfolio that meets applicable New York State Independent System Operator (NYISO) and New York State Reliability Council requirements, environmental standards, and the State’s Clean Energy Standard” and “Updating the Integrated Resource Plan (“IRP”) to reassess system needs, when such updates are necessary, but no less often than every five years.” • Pursuant to the IRP reviewed by the Board in July 2017, Long Island capacity reserves are expected to exceed the NYISO’s minimum capacity requirement through 2035 without adding new resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Permit Review Report Permit ID: 1-4726-00130/00038 Renewal Number: 3 02/04/2019
    New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Permit Review Report Permit ID: 1-4726-00130/00038 Renewal Number: 3 02/04/2019 Facility Identification Data Name: NORTHPORT POWER STATION Address: 301 WATERSIDE AVE (& EATONS NECK RD) NORTHPORT, NY 11768 Owner/Firm Name: NATIONAL GRID GENERATION LLC Address: 175 E OLD COUNTRY RD HICKSVILLE, NY 11801, USA Owner Classification: Corporation/Partnership Permit Contacts Division of Environmental Permits: Name: KEVIN A KISPERT Address: SUNY @ STONY BROOK 50 CIRCLE RD STONY BROOK, NY 11790 Phone:6314440302 Division of Air Resources: Name: SHAUN SNEE Address: NYSDEC - REGION 1 50 CIRCLE RD STONY BROOK, NY 11790-3409 Phone:6314440205 Air Permitting Facility Owner Contact: Name: CATHY WAXMAN Address: NATIONAL GRID 175 E OLD COUNTRY RD HICKSVILLE, NY 11801-4280 Phone:5165452579 Permit Description Introduction The Title V operating air permit is intended to be a document containing only enforceable terms and conditions as well as any additional information, such as the identification of emission units, emission points, emission sources and processes, that makes the terms meaningful. 40 CFR Part 70.7(a)(5) requires that each Title V permit have an accompanying "...statement that sets forth the legal and factual basis for the draft permit conditions". The purpose for this permit review report is to satisfy the above requirement by providing pertinent details regarding the permit/application data and permit conditions in a more easily understandable format. This report will also include background narrative and explanations of regulatory decisions made by the reviewer. It should be emphasized that this permit review report, while based on information contained in the permit, is a separate document and is not itself an enforceable term and condition of the permit.
    [Show full text]