|
Case 01-F-1276 TransGas
Energy Systems, LLC DPS Staff Comments (excluding Public Involvement Program) on
TGE Preliminary Scoping Statement, with TransGas Energy Responses Staff recognizes that the pre-application process for this project has just begun, but Staff has identified some general concerns at this stage. One such concern is the compatibility of the proposed project with land uses and land use plans in the surrounding community. As discussed further in our attached comments, impacts should be assessed considering actual existing and proposed uses, in addition to existing zoned uses. TGE Response: Existing uses and approved proposed uses, consistent with 16 NYCRR Part
1001.3 (b)(1)(i) will be assessed in the land use study.
Further details are provided in responses to comments.
We are prepared to discuss the scope of this study with DPS. In addition, we are concerned by the size of the proposed project; will a 1000 MW plant actually fit on the site, and, even if it might, would a smaller project alleviate the community compatibility concerns? TGE Response: As stated in responses to comments below, TGE will assess, in the
Application, alternative sizes for the Project, and the Application will
discuss their relative merits and drawbacks. Our comments on the applicant’s public involvement program (PIP) are also enclosed. Staff requests that the applicant respond in writing within ten days of receipt of these comments and arrange to meet with Staff as soon as possible to discuss the PIP requirements for this project. Enclosed is a copy of a summary developed by Staff in response to requests for additional information regarding the PIP requirement of the Article X certification process. TGE Response: We will arrange to meet with Staff as soon as possible.
Department of Public Service Staff has reviewed the Preliminary Scoping Statement (PSS) for TransGas Energy Facility Project. Based on our review, we identified the following points that should be addressed in the application. Our comments are organized by environmental discipline and refer to page numbers and sections in the PSS. Staff’s initial comments on the proposed stipulations contained in the PSS follow the comments on the PSS. Section 3 – Alternatives The discussion of
alternatives should be expanded to consider alternative scale facilities.
A smaller facility with smaller scale structures would be an
appropriate alternative for analysis in the application.
Reduction in proposed facility scale would enable the incorporation
of other compatible waterfront uses, including open space and recreational
corridor development, while reducing potential adverse impacts including
noise, visual and community character. TGE Response: TGE will include an analysis of alternative scale facilities.
As suggested by DPS Staff, the analysis will include noise, visual
and community character issues. It will include an assessment of whether additional potential
waterfront amenities could be provided with a reduced scale plant. The PSS states in 3.3 and 3.4 that qualitative assessments will be performed. The nature and extent of the various studies will be determined in the stipulation negotiation process. The analysis of peaking capability discussed in 3.6 should also include noise impacts. TGE Response: TGE will discuss with interested parties which qualitative assessments
they wish to be performed. Noise
impacts will be included in the peaking capability analysis. Section 5 – Fuel Supply and Delivery It is unclear from the discussion in 5.1.3 how much oil the project would use, compared to the delivery rates discussed. The application should provide this information. TGE Response: The Application will include oil consumption rates as well as delivery
rates. This has already been
proposed by TGE in Stipulation 4, Clause 2(a). Section 6 – Electric Transmission and Steam Sendout Proposed steam sendout is discussed in 6.2. If the delivery of steam to the Con Edison steam system is to be considered a viable aspect of this project and considered by the Siting Board in reaching its decision in the case, then specific information demonstrating the likelihood of such cogeneration must be presented in the application. TGE Response: The
Application will develop evidence that the Project, without cogeneration,
should be approved under Article X. TGE
also intends to develop evidence as to the additional impacts and benefits
that would accrue with cogeneration, thereby supporting Siting Board
Certification of that option as well.
The Application will also present evidence concerning the
likelihood of cogeneration.
Section 9 – Land Use
Open Space and Recreation The discussion of open space and recreation needs to include a summary of the overall facility impacts on recreation resources, uses and users. Separating noise, visual, and emissions discussions will not provide the record with an adequate basis for addressing the findings on recreational resources as required by the Article X statute. The analysis of land use and recreational impacts should consider the overall effects of the specific topic studies. TGE Response: As dictated by good land use planning practice, the Application
will indeed integrate the various topic studies to present an overall
impact on open space and recreation resources, uses and users. Open
Space The proposed Open Space study parameters should be modified. Since the site has a waterfront location, any proposed radius will include an area of nearly 50% surface water (East River and inlet), which should not be included in the study. Areas north of the inlet area will effectively be outside of the area reachable by construction personnel. The applicant should propose an open space study protocol and parameters which addresses this topic in a meaningful way. Direct and indirect impacts should be studied. TGE
Response: The specific purpose of open space studies under the methodology
presented in the CEQR Technical Manual is to assess whether personnel
associated with a development will utilize existing open space resources.
The radius that is recommended is based on typical walking
distance. Task Force comments
recommend increasing the radius, which TGE is willing to do. Land Use Study The
proposed study of the major land use types should be supplemented with
detailed studies of the specific (not just major) land uses in the
neighborhood surrounding the facility site. Specific criteria for
assessing neighborhood land uses should be presented in revised draft
stipulations for discussion.
TGE Response: Both specific and major land uses will be assessed.
We will revise the stipulations accordingly. Neighborhood Character
TGE Response: Criteria for assessing neighborhood character can be found in the CEQR
Technical Manual. Additional
language will be added to the stipulations making clear this point, and
spelling out what these criteria are. Zoning and Land
Use Compatibility Zoning and land use compatibility discussion needs to address zoning amendments for Brooklyn Loft Conversions (Residential Conversion of Existing Non-Residential Buildings). A major component of the Williamsburg-Greenpoint M3-1 district along Kent Avenue and including areas on 12th Street near the proposed site are included in the area where residential loft conversions will be allowed uses. An area on Franklin and Quay Streets near the facility is also identified for this zoning use change. The application will need to address the potential for noise, visual, traffic and other construction and operational effects on the residential uses in this area. TGE Response: The proposed residential loft conversions will be analyzed. Relevant figures in the application should depict the residential use areas within the manufacturing zone. References to re-zoning (see PSS section 9.2.4, et.al.) need to include additional areas as indicated above. (While the re-zoned parcels do not specifically abut the project site, they include locations one block from the site.) Documentation of consultation with City Planning should be included in application supporting materials. TGE Response: Figures showing individual residential land uses will be provided in the
Application. Documentation of
consultation with the Department of City Planning will be included in the
Application. The application should
include an aerial ortho-photograph of the project area reflecting current
conditions of the site and the surrounding study area, at a scale suitable
for discerning land use details. TGE Response: Such an ortho-photograph will be provided as part of the Application. Local Laws Applicability Staff encourages the
applicant to make early consultations with the City of New York regarding
the applicability of local laws, permitting, design standards, relevant
code provisions and administrative responsibilities.
Full reporting on the applicability and coordination of Article X
and local permitting should be included in the application. Staff will provide additional recommendations as discussions
on study design and stipulation terms advance. TGE Response: TGE looks forward to discussing these issues both with the City of New York and DPS Staff. Decommissioning and Restoration These topics should be
presented in a separate chapter of the application, rather than as a
component of the Land Use chapter. TGE Response: Decommissioning and restoration will be addressed in a separate
chapter. However, unless
other parties object, TGE would prefer to keep these topics under the land
use stipulation. Section 10 – Urban Design and Visual Resouces In addition to the inventory of resources listed in 10.3.2, the application should fully address local community viewpoints which may be affected by the proposed facility. Renderings of project appearance from important local vantage points will be necessary to address community impacts and assess effects on community character. TGE Response: All these analyses will be undertaken.
Additional stipulation language will be prepared. Lighting and marking: facility stacks will likely require aviation hazard lighting or marking. Visibility and impact analysis should assess the hazard marking or lighting requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. Alternatives analysis is appropriate, including use of dual lighting systems to minimize night-time impacts of intense white lighting on residential communities. Further, an alternative analysis of a smaller facility on the need for any hazard marking or lighting should be made, since this would minimize any adverse impact. TGE Response: All these analyses will be undertaken.
Additional stipulation language will be prepared. Analysis of visibility and visual impact should provide the results of the proposed experimentation with combinations of flues, disguise of dual-flue structures, as well as shorter stack
flues or smaller diameter flues. Again,
the influence of stack marking or lighting requirements should be factored
into this analysis. TGE Response: All these analyses will be undertaken.
Additional stipulation language will be prepared. The proposed facility
design appears to be evolving: comparison of the facility depicted in the
PSS at Figure 2-2 with the “current design” as depicted on the Future Site rendition
on the TransGas Energy
website (www.transgasenergy.com/ PresPrelimFuture, updated Oct. 16, 2001)
indicates that the facility cooling structure and stacks are being scaled
to lower top elevations than as depicted in the PSS. (If, on the other
hand, the PSS Figure 2-2 depiction is more current than the Future
Site depiction on the website, then the website has not been kept
current.) Regardless of which
depiction is more current, Staff encourages the applicant to pursue design
alternatives which result in a smaller height and footprint and which
could provide waterfront access along the northerly site boundary, and
which could potentially provide visual access to the waterfront. TGE
Response: The
recommendations are noted. Figure
2-2 is, in fact, more current that the website noted, and the website will
be amended to reflect this update. In
any case, TGE is investigating alternative designs to lower stack height
and reduce the footprint. Section
11 –
Noise It is
unclear from the discussion in 11.2.2 whether measurement locations will
be proposed at existing residential locations or at zoned residential
locations. Measurement should
be taken at the nearest existing and proposed sensitive receptors. TGE
Response: Measurement
locations will be proposed at existing and proposed sensitive receptors,
as well as at the nearest residential zoning lot lines. Section 13 – Traffic and Transportation Parking
and laydown areas will need to be more specifically identified in the
application, rather than “described generically”, as proposed in 13.3. TGE
Response: The
statement should have been more precise.
Alternative parking/laydown areas will be specifically identified.
Several potential laydown scenarios may be assessed. If, however, a single, practical laydown area is identified,
then we propose not to evaluate additional laydown areas in great detail.
Consistent with the Staff position in the Astoria Article X
Recommended Decision (Case 99-F-1191, p. 44), we also would like to
explore a certificate condition that permits an applicant to identify
construction support areas in the compliance filing. Section 14 – Soils, Geology and Seismology Section
14.2.2 states that “a further geotechnical investigation will be
conducted as necessary … and may be reported upon in the Application”.
All the information listed in 14.2.2 must be provided in the
application. Since the PSS
provides no citation to previously conducted geotechnical investigations,
it appears that a new investigation will need to be conducted. TGE
Response: All
information listed in 14.2.2 will be provided. If the
delivery of steam to the Con Edison steam system is to be considered a
viable aspect of this project, then more information than that in
available literature and a conceptual work plan, as proposed in 14.3.1,
will be required. TGE
Response: TGE
would like further clarification of this comment and will contact DPS. Section 15 – Water Resources The proposal for using the Brooklyn Queens Aquifer should be discussed in the following context: Unless TransGas is proposing to either construct an on-site well or purchase and reopen an idled well from the City of New York, the use of the Brooklyn Queens Aquifer should be considered part of the public water supply discussion and not as a separate water supply option. As such, any commitment of resources by TransGas to reopen a municipal well should be presented as a mitigation measure. A full assessment of the impacts on the entire public water supply system will still be required. TGE
Response: TGE
agrees with the characterization of the analysis.
The potential use of Brooklyn Queens Aquifer water will be
presented as a public water supply issue.
However, TGE may still differentiate between the sources of that
water supply (surface water reservoir vs. groundwater).
To clarify the potential option to be studied – TGE does not
propose to construct and purchase a well.
However, it may be able to provide a use for wells presently idled
and not considered to be presently capable of producing potable water. Section 16 – Cumulative Impacts The
appropriate stipulations should be revised to reflect the proposed
cumulative impact studies discussed in this section. TGE
Response: TGE proposes that either the language regarding cumulative impacts should be in each stipulation, as applicable, or it should be in Stipulation 12, but not both. Our preference is that it be in Stipulation 12. |
||
|
Initial Comments On Draft Stipulations Stipulation 2: Cultural Resources Clause 1 should include consultation with DPS staff regarding the proposed studies of archeological resources. Documentation of prior disturbance may require additional documentation and resource evaluation. TGE
Response: DPS
Staff will be included in the consultations.
Additional stipulation language will be prepared accordingly. Off-site interconnections need to be addressed in study parameters, as well as the facility site. TGE
Response: Interconnections
will be included. Additional
stipulation language will be prepared accordingly. Clause 4(c) should be interpreted to require photographs of views from the identified historic resources in the study area to the facility Project site. TGE
Response: Stipulation
language will be changed to specify views from historic resources toward
the Project site. An identification of
analysis of mitigation needs for potential visual effects of facility
construction or operation on historic resources should be included as an
addition stipulation term. TGE
Response: Stipulation
language will be modified accordingly. The stipulation should
specify that a summary statement addressing the potential impact on
historic resources will be included. TGE
Response: Stipulation
language will be modified accordingly. Stipulation
No. 3: Electric Transmission
Facilities Note: The following stipulation should replace the stipulation
contained in the PSS without
changes. [Text
omitted here; instead it will appear in revised Stipulation 3, without
changes.] Stipulation
4: Project Alternatives Clause
7 should specify that alternative scale facilities will be analyzed and
compared for identifying the facility which minimizes impacts on resources
and the local community. Alternative
arrangements, and a smaller facility which also incorporates waterfront
recreational access along the northern site boundary should be included. Clause 7 should specify
that alternative exhaust stack arrangements and heights will be analyzed,
as discussed in the visual commentary of the PSS. TGE
Response: A
new paragraph will be inserted into Clause 7 that addresses downsizing,
and whether waterfront recreational access along the northern site
boundary could be included because of it. Clause 6 stipulation should read: Reliability
The
application will contain an assessment, with supporting details, of the
reliability and feasibility of Applicant’s preferred generation
equipment. As part of the
supporting details, reliability data for the major generation components
including the gas turbine, heat recovery steam generator, and steam
turbine, and collectively for the entire power block will be provided.
Data is to be unit specific to the Applicant’s facility and not
averaged with other makes and models of equipment.
The reliability data to be included is as follows: capacity factor;
availability; equivalent availability; forced outage rate; equivalent
forced outage rate; and starting reliability, if available.
Data for the last five years, year-by-year and cumulative, will be
provided. If the equipment does not have an operating history,
estimates of operating reliability with the rationale including back-up
information from tests and experience with individual equipment components
will be provided. TGE
Response: Stipulation
language will be modified accordingly. The
following should be added to the Alternatives stipulation: Alternatives The application will explain the basis for the selection
of the power block. TGE
Response: Stipulation
language will be modified accordingly. Choice of emission control system The
application will include an explanation of the basis for the chosen
emission control systems and alternatives. TGE
Response: Stipulation
language will be modified accordingly. Choice of cooling system The
application will include an evaluation and assessment of alternative
cooling systems and
will provide sufficient information about the reasonableness of the
preferred cooling system and why other options are not considered
reasonable alternatives. Additionally,
the application will provide an analysis to evaluate qualitatively the
preferred system with respect to noise, operations/economics and aesthetic
impact TGE
Response: Stipulation
language will be modified accordingly. Stipulation
5: Land Uses and Local Laws Clause 1 needs to be
updated as appropriate to include recent and pending revisions to zoning
codes and planning documents. The
applicant should confer with the New York City Department of City Planning
to identify any other planning documents and policies relevant for
consideration in the proposed studies. TGE
Response: Stipulation
language will be modified accordingly. Clause 1
also needs to be expanded to address all relevant code provisions of the
New York City Administrative Code, and the Rules and Regulations. TGE
Response: Stipulation
language will be modified accordingly. Clause 2(a)(ii) should be
changed to address properties within the zone to be studied for the open
space study. An appropriate
study design and distance should be devised based on the waterfront
location of the property, the resources within the project vicinity, and
relevant considerations such as streetscape visibility, street alignment,
pedestrian and traffic patterns, and related factors influencing study
area context. Detailed land
use impact discussions should focus on the potential for facility impacts
on the properties and uses within this zone. TGE
Response: TGE
will identify such areas and include them in a revised stipulation. Amend the list of figures
to include an aerial ortho-photograph of the project area reflecting
current conditions of the site and the surrounding study area. TGE
Response: Stipulation
language will be modified accordingly. The application should provide a discussion of real property
interests, information about site access, the need for easements for
interconnections, and related information.
The following clauses are recommended for inclusion in the Land Use
and Local Laws stipulations: Real Property The Application shall
include: (a) A demonstration that the Applicant has obtained title to the Project site (including street access) or is under binding contract or option to obtain title to the Project site (including
street access). TGE
Response: Stipulation
language will be modified accordingly. (b)
A demonstration that the Applicant has obtained, or can obtain,
such deeds, easements, leases, licenses or other real property interests
as are necessary for all interconnections for the Project, except no such
demonstration shall be required regarding any transmission interconnection
subject to Article VII. TGE
Response: Stipulation
language will be modified accordingly. (c)
An identification of any improvement district extensions necessary
for the Project and a demonstration that the Applicant has obtained, or
can obtain, such improvement district extensions. TGE
Response: Stipulation
language will be modified accordingly. Stipulation 6: Noise A
Noise Impact Assessment Protocol, as noted in the proposed stipulation,
must be prepared as part of the noise stipulation.
The applicant could use the Orion Astoria Repowering (01-F-1522)
final stipulations (http://www.orion.ene.com/) as guidance in drafting the
protocol. TGE
Response: A
Noise Impact Assessment Protocol will be prepared. Clause 8 needs to be revised, to eliminate reference to “D” and to separate compliance with local laws into another clause. TGE
Response: With
respect to local law compliance, stipulation language will be modified
accordingly. With respect to a reference to “D”, TGE does not believe
it would be detrimental to the record in the case and would object to
eliminating the reference. Stipulation 9: Traffic and Transportation Revise clause 2 (e) by deleting “mid-day” and “(unless traffic counts … weekday peaks)”. TGE
Response: Stipulation
language will be modified accordingly. Stipulation
10: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Clause 2 (d) and (e) need to
address any exhaust stack lighting or marking requirements as
determined by FAA; results of FAA review should be modeled in visibility
assessment and impact determination. TGE
Response: Stipulation
language will be modified accordingly. Stipulation 11: Water
Resources The water stipulation
proposed by TransGas should be revised to incorporate the most recent
final and draft stipulations from other Article X cases.
Please use the Orion Astoria Repowering (01-F-1522) final
stipulations (http://www.orion.ene.com/) as well as the proposed Kings
Park Energy Project (Case 01-F-1356) and Besicorp stipulations (see
http://www.dps.state.ny.us/kingspark.htm and http://www.besicorp.com/
respectively) as guidance. In
addition, TransGas should propose stipulations regarding the use of
Newtown Creek WPCP effluent. TGE
will review the subject stipulations to address
this comment. Our
understanding, however, is that none of the aforementioned plants use air
cooling. (One is simple cycle, the other two use evaporative cooling.)
|
||
| Home Page |