Case 01-F-1276

TransGas Energy Systems, LLC

 Task Force Comments on TGE Preliminary Scoping Statement and Proposed Stipulations, with TransGas Energy Responses 

INTRODUCTION  

Pursuant to Article X of the Public Service Law and implementing regulations, the Community Board One and the Greenpoint Williamsburg Waterfront Task Force[1], a coalition of 40 Brooklyn community organizations, (hereinafter collectively “Task Force”), respectfully submit the following comments on the Preliminary Scoping Statement (“PSS”) of the proposed 1,100 megawatt (Mw) TransGas Energy generation project for the East River waterfront. 

The filing of the PSS triggers the duty on the part of the Applicant to initiate formal consultation with involved agencies and the public.  PSL §163 (3),(4). The purpose of the Task Force comments submitted herein is to put the Applicant and involved agencies on notice as to what the community regards as the fundamental gaps in TransGas Energy’s identification of, and program to assess the economic, environmental, and social issues that arise in connection with the project.  These central issues must be fairly, objectively, and comprehensively addressed in determining whether the project is in the public interest. PSL § 168 (2)(e).

For the reasons set forth in detail below, TransGas Energy’s PSS is deeply flawed.  Indeed, the PSS is replete with self-serving, inaccurate, incomplete and misleading narrative regarding the compatibility of the project with existing and planned land uses. The PSS’s unsupported preliminary assessment and planned program of study only adds to the Task Force’s profound anxiety over the siting of a major new generating facility in New York City’s most vital and rapidly developing waterfront community.

Moreover, the scope of the project, as well as the definition of key project parameters, is unacceptably ambiguous.  Major uncertainties surround such project assumptions as:

The potential for steam sales to Con Edison.  The Applicant must expeditiously resolve whether this is a realistic possibility or mere wishful thinking. If the former, it is incumbent upon TransGas Energy to analyze the environmental impacts of the necessary steam connection buried in the East River between Brooklyn and Manhattan and other reasonably related structures, as well as a program to mitigate expected environmental impacts.  If the latter, the purported environmental benefits of steam sales should be dismissed as remote speculative and uncertain.

TGE Response:

The PSS states that the Application will analyze the environmental impacts of structures related to the steam interconnection.  Studies providing for the analysis of interconnections are included throughout the proposed stipulations.

The reuse of non-potable water by treating the wastewater effluent from the Newton Creek Water Pollution Control plant.  Again, TransGas Energy has provided scant information for this to be taken as a serious option.  Unless and until this option is integrated into the design of the plant the Commission should disregard any claimed environmental advantage.

Interconnection to transmission system, gas pipelines and other off-site impacts.  The PSS fails to fully detail and sufficient of environmental impacts associated with the delivery of natural gas or reinforcement of the transmission network that will result from this project.

TGE Response:

The PSS cannot detail these impacts because they are not yet known.  This presentation will be made in the Application.

Backup fuel.  The PSS is completely non-committal regarding the use of, and air quality impacts, associated with backup fuel oil.

TGE Response:

TGE disagrees with this assertion.  It goes without saying that the air quality impacts will be evaluated on both the primary and backup fuel.  Oil will be used as a back-up fuel.  A primary advantage of the site and a reason for its need to be at this waterfront location is the existing on-site oil pipeline and infrastructure to barge supplemental oil to the site.

Cumulative impacts. The applicant fails to address the need for fair share based upon area's existing footprint for permitted and planned generation facilities and numerous other municipal and state permitted uses.

TGE Response:

The applicability of the “Fair Share” criteria to the proposed facility will be addressed in the Application.

Further, as pointed out in the following sections, the PSS and supporting stipulations do not comport with the program of studies directed in more recent Article X filings.  In particular, the proposed analyses for air quality, land use, socio-economics, aesthetics and visual resources and noise fail to reflect the latest Commission thinking on the state of the art in environmental impact review.

TGE Response:

The comment is not specific enough to formulate a response.

Finally, the Task Force regards the specification of the “no action” alternative and its juxtaposition to the proposed project as critical to this proceeding.  This analysis should, address, with significant input from community stakeholders, the possible future development of the site and surrounding area if the Siting Board rejects the proposed facility.  The study must include local land use, environmental and socio-economic implications of the no build scenario should be included. The Task Force believes that this study will establish that the project is incompatible with the intended land use for the site.

TGE Response:

The “no action” alternative will be  addressed, in compliance with guidance provided by prior Siting Board Decisions.

The Task Force's comments should not be construed in any way suggesting that it supports or believes in the viability of TGE's proposed facility. Notwithstanding, the Task Force has tried to objectively comment on the PSS and the proposed studies in order to ensure the development of a thorough and accurate record for the Siting Board's consideration.

COMMENTS ON THE PRELIMINARY SCOPING STUDY (PSS)

PSS SECTION 1.0 - SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

Section 1.3 Purpose of this Statement – Page 1-4

As indicated in the introduction and explained herein, the PSS does not fully comply with the Siting Board regulations:

·        The description of the proposed facility is vague and superficial with regards to the steam sendout and other aspects of the proposal. PSL § 163.1(a), 16 NYCRR § 1000.4(c)(2)(i).

·        TGE Response: TGE disagrees.  The description of the facility provides a brief discussion on the basis of available information, consistent with the Siting Board regulations (PSL § 163). 

·        The "environmental setting" of the project has not included off-site locations impacted by this facility, despite the fact that off-site actions would be required. PSL § 163.1(a), 16 NYCRR § 1000.4(c)(1).

·        TGE Response: TGE disagrees.  To describe all off-site locations at this time presumes that all interconnection studies have been completed and all are interconnection routes are defined.  This is  not the case at this time.  The stipulations will dictate the study areas for not only the plant, but also the interconnections.

·        Significant issues raised by the public were mischaracterized.  16 NYCRR § 1000.4(c)(2)(vi).

·        TGE Response: TGE welcomes public involvement, so that any differences in interpretation can be clarified.  The above comment is not specific as to which issues Task Force believes were mischaracterized.

·        The proposed analysis of "reasonable alternatives" is inadequate. PSL § 163(e), 16 NYCRR § 1000.4(c)(2)(v).

·        TGE Response: The comment is insufficient to provide a basis for response.

·        The PSS only discusses potential positive impacts not negative impacts and does not mention off-site impacts.  Neither the potentially significant adverse impacts identified by the public nor the environmental setting that would be affected were discussed. PSL § 163.1(b), 16 NYCRR § 1000.4(c)(2)(ii).

·        TGE Response: TGE disagrees.  The PSS discusses potential impacts and benefits.  Nowhere does it propose that the Application exclude negative impacts.

·        The discussion of the proposed study program in lacking.  PSL § 163.1(c), 16 NYCRR § 1000.4(c)(2)(iii). The stipulations are incomplete (Appendix B).

·        TGE Response: This comment is not specific enough to provide a basis for a response.

·        The discussion of measures proposed to minimize environmental impacts and "an initial identification of mitigation measures" is missing for several aspects of the project. PSL § 163.1(d), 16 NYCRR § 1000.4(c)(2)(ii). 

·        TGE Response: TGE disagrees, and addresses each such topic below.

PSS SECTION  2.0  -  PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Section 2.2.1 The Site - Page 2-1

The Applicant proposes to place a large generating facility on a nine acre site.  Artists illustrations show that the completed facility will practically cover the entire site.  It seems unlikely that the site is large enough. Further, it is inadequate for off street parking for construction workers or to accommodate the lay down areas required during construction.

TGE Response:

The proposed Project is in fact highly land-efficient, even for an urban area.  TGE will present its laydown area and parking plans in the Application and show how the Project fits on the site.

The application should show the location of all primary and ancillary facilities, off site lay down areas and off site parking and should discuss the noise and traffic impacts of these off site facilities.  The Task Force will propose modifications to the noise and transportation stipulations to reflect these comments.

TGE Response:

The Application will discuss all relevant environmental impacts for all interconnections.

The PSS presents the site as part of a waterfront dominated by industrial, manufacturing, and infrastructure uses. This is inaccurate. The closest active industrial or manufacturing use is the NYPA plant and Domino Sugar some 8 blocks to the south.  The site immediately to the south of the proposed site is a document storage facility, (not manufacturing), and directly below that a DOS garbage truck facility already scheduled to be moved.  Directly to the south of these facilities are four blocks of waterfront property that NYS and NYU have begun to redevelop into athletic fields. The NY 2012 Olympic Organizing Committee has slated this site for volleyball and archery competitions The USA Waste owns the only remaining property to the south, which is currently on the market for sale.  To the north is the Bushwick Creek Inlet a waterfront area proposed for open space acquisition by NYS. Directly across the Bushwick Creek Inlet are several small properties consisting of mainly warehouse facilities, and the Chimento Trucking property, (owned by the City of New York), recommended in the Greenpoint 197a plan to become a museum commemorating the site of the construction and launching of the Civil War Ironclad Monitor ("Monitor Site") and a public park.  North of that is a large four-block parcel that has been purchased by a residential developer. The nearest active manufacturing or industrial use lies beyond a two-block waterfront parcel owned by the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation.

TGE Response:

 The Task Force’s description of nearby properties will be considered during the preparation of the Application pursuant to 16 NYCRR Part 1001.3(b)(1)(i).  The Application will study the compatibility of the Project and interconnections with all existing and all approved proposed land uses.

The PSS also incorrectly states that the site “is in a portion of the waterfront that is as distant from primarily residential blocks of both Greenpoint and Williamsburg as the East River waterfront allows - approximately 1,000 feet in all directions.” There is active residential occupation in buildings as close as 30 feet from the site, (the NE corner of North 13th Street), another 350 feet from the site, (the SE corner of North 11th street), and several blocks of live/work lofts 500 feet from the site (From North 12th street south past North 9th). These situation is considered by the City as Non-Conforming Use residences, but some are covered by the NYC Loft Law, even though the zoning is M-1 or Mixed Use.2

TGE Response:

Nothing in the Task Force comment changes the accuracy of TGE’s statement that the site “is in a portion of the waterfront that is as distant from primarily residential blocks of both Greenpoint and Williamsburg as the East River waterfront allows - approximately 1,000 feet in all directions.”  The sentence spoke of primarily residential blocks, not non-residential blocks with certain residential uses.

It is the Task Force’s contention the proposed project will halt the mixed-use development of this large area of the North Brooklyn Waterfront and become a city wide visible symbol associating negative connotation for the Greenpoint/Williamsburg Communities.

TGE Response:

TGE intends to demonstrate in its Application that the Project can be designed to be compatible with the surrounding area, and furthermore can have a positive rather than a negative connotation for the blocks that immediately surround it.  See Section 10 of the PSS.

Section 2.2.2 The Greenpoint and Williamsburg Communities – Page 2-3

The PSS characterizes the Greenpoint-Williamsburg (“GP/W”) neighborhoods as a mix of industrial and residential uses. This is not exact as it ignores light manufacturing established in the area around the site. Indeed, local plans indicate heavy industrial facilities are inappropriate for this site.  There is tremendous pressure to increase the housing supply and related support businesses, as well as open space and parklands.

TGE Response:

The Application will address local plans and will include a discussion responsive to this comment.

For these reasons, Community Board One’s recommended plans for Greenpoint and Williamsburg ("197-a plans") place priorities upon increasing affordable low-rise housing stock, waterfront access for residents, and environmental quality. The Greenpoint 197a plan also calls for new market rate housing, north of this site at the Greenpoint Terminal Market site. This site, already purchased by a residential developer, will become less desirable for market rate housing with the proposed power plant clearly visible to the south.

TGE Response:

TGE understands the proposed priorities of the subject 197-a plans, but disagrees with the latter opinion about market rate housing.  Very high real estate prices and rents are possible immediately adjacent to power plants – for example, the blocks surrounding Waterside, East 74^th Street, and West 59^th Street stations in Manhattan.

It seems highly unlikely the application would be able to demonstrate consistency with City regulations, performance standards and the City, the Borough and community planning documents. Moreover, the Borough, the Community Board and elected representatives throughout the area have expressed their opposition to this project.

Section 2.3.4 Water and Wastewater – Page 2-8

Wastewater flows presents a problem for TGE’s proposal in this site. Wastewater flows would be discharged into the site's existing sewer connection or by a separate line to the Newtown Creek WPCP. In page 2-8 TGE states that the site is presently connected to the sewer system and the alternative to building a new sewer is not being explored.  These communities are already subject to serious flooding problems.  Any increase in wastewater discharged into the sewer system adds to this problem. This problem needs to be addressed.       

      Wastewater flows generated by the Project of 500,000 gallons per day should also be studied in the context of the several thousands of new housing units that will be added to the GP/W communities in the coming years by the conversion of existing manufacturing buildings to residential and the proposed developments at the GTM and Greenpoint Lumber Exchange sites. The stipulation should reflect this concern.

TGE Response:

TGE will evaluate the requirements of the City of New York for connection to the sewer system in the Application.

Section 2.3.5 Safety and Protection Systems – Page 2-9

The Task Force proposes a new stipulation (Stipulation 13) dealing with these issues. A safety study should determine if the site offers the proper conditions for security under the current circumstances. The safety and emergency response plans for the facility require the input of the GP/W community. Thus, the new stipulations should take into account concerns of the U.S. Coast Guard, the NYS Police, the NYC Police Department, GP/W local authorities and local organizations. TGE should also be required to study an emergency evacuation plan. In light of the security measures likely to be required for this facility at this site, the project can no longer seriously offer waterfront access along North 12th Street. A generation project at this site simply curtails waterfront access and is incompatible with State Coastal Management Policies.

TGE Response:

The application will show how TGE will comply with applicable security requirements for this type of facility.

Section 2.3.9 Waste Generation and Disposal - Page 2-10

The project should include information on the hazardous waste resulting from the clean up of the site, and how TGE will study the appropriate management of solid and hazardous waste during construction and operation of the proposed project. Stipulations should develop how to undertake these studies. See Section 9.6 of the PSS.

TGE Response:

TGE proposes to study the proposed clean-up of the site and the proposed management of solid and hazardous waste during construction and operation.

Section 2.3.10 Project Operation – Page 2-11

A generation project at this site would not generate jobs for the community. The operational labor force is presently estimated to consist of approximately 40 full-time employees. Any light manufacturing use, supported by the community in the Williamsburg 197a plan, would generate far more jobs. This concern has to be reflected in the socio-economic studies and the “no action” scenario.

TGE Response:

Job creation under construction and operation, including secondary effects, will be studied.  The level of job creation under the “no action” scenario will also be considered.

PSS SECTION 3.0 - ENERGY PLANNING

Section 3.1.4 Construction and Operation in the Public Interest - Page 3-2  

TGE states that it will submit the results of a detailed system production cost analysis but does not state which model or data base it proposes to use.  The selection of a data base can introduce considerable uncertainty into the model results not only, as TGE acknowledges, because the future generating stock is uncertain, but also because potential competitors are unlikely to reveal anticipated running costs.  TGE should provide, in its application, a complete description and justification of the data base used in its production cost runs and a full discussion of the uncertainties inherent in the data bases and model output.

TGE Response:

TGE believes that complying with Stipulation 4, Clause 5 will be sufficient to allay these concerns.  TGE will provide in the Application a description and justification of the model and data base. 

Section 3.2 No Action Alternative - Page 3-3

A clear and unbiased definition of the “no action alternative” is a key factor in evaluating the environmental impacts of a proposed action.  For any given proposed action there are likely to be several ways to define the no action alternative and alternative definitions may affect the types of environmental studies and analyses undertaken and thus the details of the stipulations under consideration.

In this section of the PSS, TGE mentions the “no action alternative” in general without defining a specific “no action alternative” for the proposed action.  The Task Force requests that TGE provide the parties with a specific definition of the “no action alternative” that TGE proposes to use in its application. As indicated earlier, stipulations should be added to include local land use, environmental and socio-economic implications of the no build scenario. In fact, most stipulations should include the "no action alternative".

TGE Response:

As stated above, guidance from prior Siting Board decisions will be used to formulate the analysis of the no-action alternative. 

Section 3.3 Cooling Technology Alternatives – Page 3-3

The Task Force agrees that a comparison of cooling system alternatives should be included in the application.  However, we disagree with TGE’s proposal to give only “qualitative consideration” to the potential impacts listed at the bottom of page 3-3 and the top of page 3-4.  The application should include quantitative comparisons of the cooling alternatives with regards to land requirements, physical dimensions, visual plume, water demand and consumptive water losses, incremental water discharge, thermal discharge, noise, and effect of project efficiency and derating. Useful quantitative engineering comparisons specific to this project could be made without detailed design of the cooling alternatives.  The cooling alternatives study submitted by the Applicant in the Bethlehem Energy Center ("BEC") case is a good example of the type of analysis that should provide TGE.3 

The proposal incorrectly states several cooling technologies are feasible for this site.  As DEC Commissioner has indicated a once-through cooling system should not be considered for a new facility.  The discussion of cooling alternatives should include an analysis of alternate air cooled condenser designs. Modifying engineering design factors such as: design temperature; number and size of cells; number, diameter and tip speed of fans; and, condenser height can, within limits, change both the performance of the power plant and environmental impacts such as noise, visual impact, and the amount of the site covered by the cooling system footprint.

TGE should propose a draft stipulation for review by the parties that details the types of qualitative and quantitative information on cooling system alternatives that will be included in the application.  The BEC cooling system study is recommended as a model for this stipulation.

TGE Response:

TGE has eliminated once-through cooling from consideration, and therefore is willing to eliminate it from the subject stipulation.  The BEC stipulation is inapposite to the TGE project because wet cooling and not dry cooling is proposed in that case.

The fundamental issue is not in doubt – TGE intends to install air cooling, despite its cost disadvantages.  Hence, the issue will be not one of alternatives, but of optimizing the air cooling design.  Task Force will be free to ask for specific supplemental information in the stipulation process or during discovery if a particular aspect of the cooling system design has not been properly optimized, in its view.

Section 3.5.1 Primary Fuel - Page 3-4

      The Applicant proposes to use 200,000 DTH of natural gas per day. See page 5-1.  TGE essentially asserts that adequate supply will be available and does not propose any specific analysis of availability. However, the Applicant should conduct an analysis of the availability of such supply for the life of the project that includes existing and future users, including the increased gas usage associated with recently certified Article X power plants (e.g., Con Edison, Keyspan) and other proposed Article X power plants, as well as the restarted the Hudson Avenue Station, the permitted 79.9 Mw barge plant for the Brooklyn Navy Yard and New York Power Authority mini-generators and non-major generating facilities in the area. Stipulations should reflect studies in the context of diversity, price and reliability.

TGE Response:

      TGE will comply with prior Siting Board decisions on evaluating fuel supply.

Section 3.5.2 Backup Fuel – Page 3-4

TGE has not specified the estimated time and consumption of the backup fuel. These aspects of the project need to be determined prior to undertaking any environmental impact study. In addition, TGE should evaluate both types of backup fuel - the currently available 0.05% sulfur oil and the as yet unavailable 0.005% sulfur oil. 

The Applicant proposes to use natural gas and asserts that it will use oil only as a backup fuel.  In fact, oil will be used not merely for emergency circumstances, but for all conditions during which gas is unavailable.  These circumstances could be market-based when the price of gas exceeds oil during the winter season.  The total emission of pollutants and their air quality impacts are directly related to fuels that will be used at the proposed facility.  Specifically, because the combustion of oil will produce greater total pollutants than natural gas, the total amount and period of the use of oil is critical to an accurate analysis of the impact of the project.

The Applicant’s analysis of air quality impacts should be first premised on TGE specifying the periods during which oil will be used.  Specifically, TGE should establish what circumstances will be deemed to be interruptible for the project. The air quality analysis must be based on the maximum period of oil usage.

TGE Response:

Oil use will be considered in the air quality modeling analysis for the DEC air permit and will also be discussed in the Article X Application.

Section 3.6 Peaking Capability – Page 3-5

 Another undefined issue of the proposal is the “peaking capability”. TGE has stated in page 3-5 that the project “can also be designed with additional peaking capacity above its base output.”  Either TGE is proposing peaking capability or it is not. The decision has an important effect on the scope of the environmental studies required for this proposal.  TGE indicates this feature will be considered in the application. However, this should be defined at an earlier stage to develop stipulations on this aspect of the project. See comments to Section 7.3.1.

TGE Response:

TGE will specify what peaking capability is being proposed, and the studies will be designed accordingly.

PSS SECTION  4.0  -  PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM

Section 4.1 Community Involvement Process – Page 4-1

TGE's plan for involving the community lacks validity in all respects. During TGE’s pre-application phase the PIP has not adequately engaged key stakeholders. Earlier contacts with the community have been misleading and confusing. TGE acknowledges they have stirred up a certain amount of controversy.  The PIP program has failed to comply with the guidelines circulated by DPS regarding specific components of the program (stakeholder identification, meetings, educational materials, media outreach, public notification, etc.). Most important TGE has demonstrated a total lack of familiarity with New York City and this area of Brooklyn. GWAPP's Preliminary Report on the Clean Point Energy, LLC (prior name of the project), Proposal for the Bayside Site on the East River Waterfront, June 2001, illustrates the Applicant had information at hand to address the public's input on many of the issues expected in a PSS but has failed to do so. See footnote 2.

TGE has failed to identify appropriate individuals and organizations for targeted outreach activities. To date, TGE has not contacted at least half of the civic organizations within 10 blocks of Kent Avenue. To cite just some of the groups, TGE has never contacted neither Stop the Barge or Williamsburg Watch who were both at the Borough President’s meeting in June, 2001. More importantly, these organizations received a PSS for comments. The flaws of the PIP are explained in detail in Attachment A. The Task Force requires monthly updates on the consultation process and the PIP. This information TGE should be presented in the format used in Table 4-1.

TGE Response:

TGE has followed DPS guidelines regarding elements of the PIP program, perhaps not in the manner Task Force would perform a PIP.  TGE wishes to point out again that many people contacted would not meet with us at first.  Furthermore, it was announced by one of the speakers at the June, 2001 meeting sponsored by GWAPP that the civic groups that comprise GWAPP did not want to be contacted individually, but rather through GWAPP leadership or representation.  One of the advantages of the public involvement program is that it is an evolving process, not a one shot deal, and we will continue our efforts to adapt and improve the program.  We will begin contacting members of GWAPP and the Task Force individually – and, as noted in the PSS and elsewhere, any of these organizations can contact us, as well, and we will be happy to meet with them. 

We will confer with DPS concerning the Task Forces’ request for monthly updates on PIP activities.  TGE will be providing DPS staff with monthly reports on PIP activities per DPS guidance. There is no requirement, however, to provide monthly PIP updates to any party other than DPS.  Article X requires DPS to encourage and facilitate communication between an applicant and interested or affected persons.  As stated above, we are prepared and willing to communicate about the concerns Task Force has and how TGE may address them. 

TGE Response to Task Force’s Attachment A:

There appears to be some misunderstandings concerning TGE’s consultation activities prior to submittal of the PSS.  Our explanations will be better clarified in future documents.  The contacts listed in Table 4-1 were a mixture of preliminary contacts, informal conversations and lengthier discussions.  Although the table distinguishes telephone contacts and written correspondence from actual and planned meetings with stakeholders, a number of the descriptions may not have provided the necessary detail.  For example, meetings or further actions characterized as “Pending” meant only that further action had not yet occurred.  In no way did TGE mean to suggest or imply that anyone had officially agreed to meet, or, that a willingness to meet in the future was equivalent to support of the project.   We would hope that a willingness to talk meant just that – a discussion. 

We do not believe it is productive to argue about what may or may not have been said on a phone call or whether someone’s title was correctly stated.  We regret any unintended embarrassment or distress that may have been caused to members of the Greenpoint-Williamsburg community by the manner in which Table 4-1 of the PSS was presented.  We will take these comments under advisement, and, as indicated above, continue our efforts to improve and adapt our public involvement program.

PSS SECTION  5.0 - FUEL SUPPLY AND DELIVERY

Section 5.1.2 Gas Delivery and Section 5.2 Information Requirements and Methodology – Page 5-1 and 5-2

On page 5-1, TGE states that system reinforcements of the local distribution network are anticipated and that Key Span is commencing studies to determine what upgrades are required.  On page 5-2, TGE discusses an interconnection study to be undertaken by Key  Span that will, among other things, address the pipeline route and various on and off-site facilities required for the delivery of gas or the reinforcement of the KeySpan system. It is not clear if two separate studies are intended.  In any event, the studies should address, and the application should report, the environmental impacts of any pipeline, system upgrades or ancillary structures or equipment required as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed facility.

TGE Response:

            Environmental studies of required off-site facilities will be included in the Application.

PSS SECTION  6.0  -  ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION AND STEAM

Section 6.2 Proposed Steam Sendout – Page 6-1

A major topic not adequately discussed in the PSS is the company’s plan to sell steam to the Con Edison Steam System.  The PSS provides very little information on the aquatic and water quality impacts of a cross-river link to the Con Edison system or the on-shore impacts of construction activities or on-shore facilities at either end of the crossing. 

TGE Response:

The PSS provides a brief discussion based on as much information as is presently available, consistent with PSL § 163.  The Application will describe the potential environmental impacts of any cross-river steam interconnection and its associated facilities.

In prior Article X cases the Chairman of the Siting Board has ruled that an Applicant must provide sufficient information on pipelines or transmission leads that will be constructed as a result of an Article X facility to include the impacts of the associated facility in the Siting Boards required findings on the environmental impacts of the facility. This is true even if the pipeline or transmission line is subject to other subsequent licensing and review proceedings.  The proposed application cannot be judged complete without a substantial amount of information on the impacts of the steam line.

In addition, the PSS fails to address how the Applicant's plans interact with Con Edison’s plans for its steam system.  Con Edison intends to retire its Waterside Steam Plant, enlarge steam generating capacity at the East River Plant and construct new steam lines north from the East River plant to reinforce transfer capabilities between parts of its system.  The application should address the following questions:

·        Are the Applicants plan's contingent on any or all of Con Edison’s plans coming to fruition? 

·        Would construction of the cross-river steam line require Con Edison to increase the size of its planned new steam connections, or make other changes in its system? 

·        Does TGE intend to seek other industrial or commercial steam hosts in the vicinity of the TransGas site?

TGE Response:

The Application will set forth TGE’s position on these questions.

In like manner, the application should provide information on the environmental impacts of off-site water, fuel and electric transmission interconnects and on any off site reinforcements of electric, water or fuel infrastructure that must be undertaken as a consequence of construction of the TGE facility.

The Applicant should propose an additional stipulation that will detail the environmental studies it will undertake of the impacts of off-site interconnects and system improvements. See proposed stipulation 15. 

TGE Response:

The requested analysis of interconnections has been written into the stipulations, by defining “interconnections” in the preamble and citing interconnections throughout the proposed stipulations.

Section 6.4 Electric and Magnetic Fields – Page 6-2

      This area has had problems with EMF’s already, particularly in South Williamsburg. Thus, the proposal requires a separate study on EMF's in the whole area pursuant to the PSC's established guidelines. Stipulation 3 should be redeveloped further to reflect this situation.

TGE Response:

This comment provides no detail supporting the statement about EMF.  If the Task Force has specific information, TGE will review it.  As the proposed stipulation states, the analysis will comply with applicable PSC guidelines.

PSS SECTION  7.0  -  AIR QUALITY AND METEOROLOGY

Section 7.3.1 National and New York Ambient Air Quality Standards - Page 7-5

The PSS notes that the members of the Greenpoint and Williamsburg Communities have frequently raised serious concern regarding the emission and impact of fine particulates – PM 2.5.  Moreover, the PSS represents that the “Project will minimize its contribution to the formation of PM 2.5 by minimizing the emission of its regulated precursors – NOX, SO2 and VOC – as well as through its combustion of clean natural gas and the reduction in PM and PM-10 that it accomplishes.” PSS Pg. 2-8.  The PSS also claims that regional reductions in PM 2.5 by its use of NOx and VOC emission credits.

The PSS implies that PM 2.5 is exclusively is produced from the secondary formation in the atmosphere and that there is no PM 2.5 emissions from the combustion of natural gas and oil.  In fact, both natural gas and oil produce PM 2.5 emissions.   Of the total particulates produced from the combustion of natural gas, the range of PM 2.5 is between 70 and 80 %, of which a portion is condensable particulates that quickly become solid upon emission from stacks.  It is important to note condensable particulates are merely particulates that are in the gaseous phase and quickly takes on the solid form upon being emitted from a stack. This is distinguished from secondary particulate formation of precursor pollutants (e.g., NOx, VOC), which results from an atmospheric reaction of precursor pollutants to form particulates.

TGE Response:

The study of the PM-2.5 that the comment distinguishes (primary, including condensable particulate matter) will in fact be studied per EPA guidance, consistent with applicable NYSDEC and Siting Board decisions.*

Beyond mere representations, the Applicant fails to specify the manner in which it will conduct an analysis to support these representations.   The applicant should perform PM 2.5 analysis that, at a minimum includes the following: 

·        Analysis of PM 2.5 particulates from the combustion of natural gas and oil, including condensable particulates.

·        TGE Response: This will be done per EPA guidance and applicable NYSDEC and Siting Board decisions.

·        Analysis of secondary PM formation associated with the emission of NOx, VOC and Ammonia slip from the SCR system.

·        TGE Response: Particulate formation due to post-combustion processes is accounted for in the emission rate, in that the analysis will include all secondary formation that can be accounted for in EPA-specified stack tests.  This is consistent with EPA guidance.

·        Dispersion and impact analysis of total PM 2.5 associated with the project.

·        TGE Response: This will be done per EPA guidance and applicable NYSDEC and Siting Board decisions.

TGE proposed project will be a major source for hazardous air pollutants  (HAPs) under the Clean Air Act. TGE should conduct an analysis of control technologies that would achieve HAPs control greater than the technology through a Case-by-Case MACT analysis. The Applicant should conduct an analysis of design and operational alternatives to reduce HAPs emissions from the stack and fugitive emissions.  This analysis should factor technical feasibility, cost and increase HAPs removal.

TGE Response:

TGE will include a HAPs analysis per Stipulation 1, Clause 2(d).

The cumulative impacts analysis should include existing sources within 5 miles of the proposed site.  In addition, it must include the proposed emissions from recently certified Article X power plants (e.g., Con Edison, Keyspan) and other proposed Article X power plants, as well as that from the proposed restarting of the Hudson Avenue Station, the 79.9 Mw barge permitted for the Navy Yard, the New York Power Authority mini-generators and the non-major energy facilities in the area..

TGE Response:

As stated in Section 16 of the PSS, the analysis will include the proposed and recently built power plants that satisfy the criteria indicated in the comment.  However, as relates to other existing sources and Task Force’s proposed 5 mile radius, the cumulative study will follow NYSDEC Air Guides 26 and 36, as well as applicable CEQR guidance.

The Applicant should conduct an analysis (e.g., PROMOD) of the potential for displacement of older, less efficient and more polluting plants by the Project and the local air quality impacts, during base-load and peak-load conditions.  Such analysis should specify the location of all power plants that would be displaced and the level of displacement.  This analysis should incorporate recent load growth  (e.g.. over the last 10 years), as well as reduced load reduction associated with recent NYS commitments on load reduction measures. This analysis should include certified Article X power plants (e.g., Con Edison, Keyspan) and other proposed Article X power plants, as well as that from the proposed restarting of the Hudson Avenue Station, the 79.9 Mw barge permitted for the Navy Yard, the New York Power Authority mini-generators and the non-major energy facilities in the area.

TGE Response:

TGE intends to conduct such a study, and proposes to include recently proposed and built plants following the criteria included in Stipulation 14, Clauses 3 through 5.

The Applicant should also provide an analysis of the air emissions during start-up, and the projected number of start-up events on an annual basis.  If the Applicant expects to operate the CTGs independently, such analysis should include analysis of the start up of each CTG and projected number of start-up events for each CTG.

TGE Response:

Startup and shutdown conditions will be incorporated into the air quality analysis, consistent with EPA guidance.

The air quality issues associated with sources other than combustion sources, including the discharge of ammonia from storage tank loading/unloading operations, must be evaluated.  This analysis should consist of an analysis of total ammonia slip associated with the SCR control technology and impacts of the ammonia in the atmosphere including secondary particulate formation.  

TGE Response:

Ammonia handling will be described in the Application, and worst-case release scenarios will be analyzed.  Ammonia slip will be evaluated as part of the non-criteria pollutant study, where ammonia concentrations will be compared to health-based standards.  Secondary particulate formation within the stack is covered as part of the particulate emissions analysis, which includes an allowance for conversion of sulfates to particulates (ammonium salts).  Long-term secondary particulate formation has been discussed in Section 7.3.1 of the PSS.

The Applicant proposes the inclusion of peaking capability by using duct firing in the HRSG.  Duct firing is highly inefficient and produces significantly more pollution per energy produced that the base-loading components of the proposed project.  The Applicant should conduct an analysis of the air quality impacts (e.g., particulates, VOCs) associated with duct burners.  This analysis should include a comparison of particulate and VOCs emissions with and without the duct burners based on fuel combustion and electricity produced.

TGE Response:

As stated in Section 3.6 of the PSS, duct burning will be considered as an alternative. If duct burning is eliminated, it will not be included in the air permit application or air emissions analysis.  If duct burning is selected, it will be presented. 

Section 7.3.4 Air Quality Modeling  - Page 7-8 

TGE proposes that a single stack height, based on good engineering practice, be used as the basis for the air dispersion modeling.  Since stack height affects visual impacts and airline safety as well as pollutant dispersion, the good engineering practice height may not be the optimum height for the stack. The Task Force requests that the Applicant run the models using alternate stack heights to be determined after consultation with the Task Force and the regulatory staff listed in this section of the PSS.

TGE Response:

TGE will offer to discuss reasonable and practicable stack heights with the Task Force, consistent with the preparation schedule of the Application and the proposed facility.  Both higher than “Good Engineering Practice” (GEP) and lower than GEP stack heights have been requested at various public meetings.  DEC reminds TGE in its comments that any justification for stack heights other than GEP must comply with Air Guide 26.

We also recommend that the selection of receptor points be coordinated with the comprehensive analysis of impacts on neighborhoods and community resources (see our comments on section 9.0)

TGE Response:

TGE believes this approach can be very helpful in the development of the record, and appreciates it.  Below is a proposed list of receptor points for which concentrations will be documented.  TGE asks Task Force’s cooperation in identifying any other receptor points.