APPENDIX III SEQR

State Environmental Quality Review Findings Statement

Pursuant to Ali icle 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Pali 617, the NYS DEC as the Lead or an Involved Agency makes the following findings.

Name of Action: Astoria Repowering Project, 31-01 20th Avenue, Long Island City, New York

Description of Action: The project will replace 31 existing simple cycle electrical generation turbines with four new combined cycle units, increasing the generation capacity from 600 megawatts ("MW") to 1,040 MW . Phase I will retire seven Westinghouse units, and Phase II w ill retire 24 Pratt & Whitney turbines. An air emissions cap will be in place during Phase I of the project.

Location: The NRG Facility is located on a 15 acre site within the 600+ Astoria ConEd Complex, 31-01 20th Avenue, Queens, New York.

Agency Jurisdiction: Air Title V Facility, Title IV (Phase II Acid Rain), P/C/1 SPDES - Surface Discharge

Date Final Environmental Impact Statement Filed:

September 22, 2010

Facts and Conclusions Relied on to Support the Decision:

As lead agency, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) must consider the relevant environmental impacts, facts and conclusions disclosed in the final EIS in its SEQR Findings Statement, and then certify that, consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that were identified as practicable. In developing this SEQR Findings Statement, the DEC has reviewed and considered the following documents:

• Final Scoping Document for Draft Environmental Impact Statement - December 24, 2008.

• Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Astoria Repowering Project, accepted April 16, 2010 by DEC as SEQR Lead Agency.

• Final Environmental Impact Statement ( FEIS ), accepted September 22, 2010 by DEC as SEQR Lead Agency.

• Updated Permit Modification for Four CC-FAST Combined Cycle Units, Repowering Project, Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC Facility, Astoria, Queens County, New York, February 5, 2010.

• State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION, March 5, 2009.

• Acid Rain Permit Application, April 9, 2010.

DEC finds that the project has been designed, and where necessary, revised, to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse environmental impacts in the areas where DEC has jurisdiction . The following facts and conclusions are provided in support of DEC's issuance of a positive SEQR Findings Statement.

Re-Set

1. Air Resources a. Potential Impacts The updated Air Quality Analysis (contained in Appendix A of the FEIS) presents information related to background air quality conditions at the Repowering Project site, specifically climatological and ambient air quality, potential emissions from the Repowering Project, and what air quality impacts these emissions may have on existing conditions. Potential increases in emissions of criteria and non-criteria air pollutants resulting from the full Repowering Project will not exceed Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or New Source Review (NSR) thresholds established in the Clean Air Act. The full Repowering Project is expected to result in a net decrease of 647 tons per year of Nitrous Oxide (NOx) emissions and 560 tons per year of Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions. Emissions of Particulate Matter – 10 microns (PM10) and Particulate Matter – 2.5 microns (PM2.5) will increase less than 10 tons per year, and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) emissions will increase less than 8 tons per year. Assessment of potential emissions of non-criteria pollutants indicates that the project would result in maximum modeled non-criteria pollutant concentrations well below the short-term guideline concentrations (SGC) and annual guideline concentrations (AGC) established for this class of pollutants. The projected changes in air emissions from those at the existing facility are summarized in the Title V Modification Application as follows:

Two-Phase Net Emissions Increase or Decrease for PSD/NSR Pollutants (tons/yr)

Significant Threshold (tons/yr)

Significant Increase?

NOx -647 25 No CO -560 100 No

VOC +21.06 25 No PM10 +9.96 15 No PM2.5 +9.96 10 No SO2 +7.38 40 No

Beryllium +3.20E-06 0.0004 No Mercury +5.00E-05 0.1 No

Sulfuric Acid Mist +0.71 7 No Lead +0.0044 0.6 No

A net benefit modeling analysis was conducted for PM2.5 to determine the overall air quality impact of replacing the seven existing Westinghouse distillate oil-fired gas turbines and the 24 existing dual fuel-fired Pratt & Whitney TwinPacs with four natural gas- and ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD)-fired CC-FAST trains with natural gas-fired 300 mmBtu/hr duct burners. The analysis showed that the Repowering Project would provide an overall net benefit with respect to PM2.5 impacts.

2

APPENDIX III

The air quality dispersion modeling analysis determined that the Repowering Project’s maximum modeled concentrations at the ground-level and flagpole receptors are below the Significant Impact Levels (SIL) established at these locations. Thus, the Repowering Project would not significantly contribute to a modeled potential exceedance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or PSD Increment levels established in the Clean Air Act. A compliance demonstration with the recently promulgated new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS was conducted. Results of this analysis demonstrated that the Repowering Project complies with the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. b. Discussion and Findings. It is DEC’s determination that results of the air quality analyses conducted for permit review of this project indicate that the proposed Repowering Project will not have a significant adverse air quality impact. The proposed new CC-FAST combined cycle trains will improve thermal efficiencies that will deliver significantly more electrical output per unit of fuel. The new combined cycle trains will be equipped with state-of-the-art emissions controls and have good engineering practice (GEP) stacks built to 250 feet to improve air dispersion, as opposed to the 40-foot stacks on each of the existing turbines. Air permits include operating conditions that require emissions to be capped during Phase I of the project to ensure that the facility will be operated in compliance with all relevant state and federal air pollution control regulations. Potential increases in emissions of criteria and non-criteria air pollutants resulting from the full Repowering Project will not exceed PSD and NSR thresholds. The Proposed Title V Permit for the project, and responses to comments on the DEIS and complete application, were made available to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the required EPA 45-day review period. According to the 2010 Title V Operating Permits Database1, this review period commenced on August 3, 2010 and ended on September 17, 2010. No comments were received from EPA by the review period end date. Therefore this required step in the permitting process expired with no objection from EPA. 2. Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions a. Potential Impacts An assessment of the Repowering Project’s emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) showed that the proposed Repowering Project will conservatively emit approximately 0.98 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) per year. This value is based on a worst-case assumption of 8,460 hr/yr of natural gas-firing and 100 hr/yr of ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil-firing in the CC-FAST trains. The total annual inventory of CO2 for New York State

1 United State Environmental Protection Agency. Region 2. Title V Operating Permits Database. Available: http://www.epa.gov/region2/air/permit/title v database htm.

3

APPENDIX III

(NYS) averages approximately 55 MMTCE. On the State level, the maximum annual emissions from proposed Repowering Project would compare to a level of approximately 1.8% percent of the total NYS CO2 inventory. However, this does not account for the displacement of emissions from less-efficient, uncontrolled fossil-fueled electric generating units that is expected to occur as a result of project operation, including the existing NRG Astoria units that will be shut down prior to installation of the new units. The potential for climate change to result in sea level rise was estimated in the FEIS. At a current elevation level of approximately 17 feet above mean sea level (msl), the NRG Facility is well protected from minor sea level fluctuations. The (USEPA) estimates that a sea level change up to 50 centimeters, or one-half meter, could occur over the next 100 years2. If a worst-case assumption is made of a 0.5 centimeter rise per year for the next 100 years and a 30-year equipment life for the Repowering Project, the end of the effective life of the Repowering Project, sea levels could rise by up to 17.5 centimeters or 6.9 inches. This slight increase in sea level raising the East River by an equal proportion would have no impact on the existing facility and the new equipment. b. Discussion and Findings. It is expected that the new units in the Repowering Project will displace CO2 emissions from other generation throughout New York City (NYC). Thus, the expected impacts would be to reduce emissions by displacement of less efficient equipment. As the Astoria ConEd Complex houses a significant fraction of the NYC generating capacity, it is a high priority area for protection from flooding and this issue would be addressed as needed by the operating owners and by the various involved agencies. It is anticipated that no engineering controls, barriers, dikes, etc., beyond those already in the nominal site plan would be required by this maximum theoretical sea level rise. Additionally, the final grade elevation proposed for the site is 20 feet above msl. This provides an extra measure of mitigation for the projected rise in sea level. 3. Geology, Soils and Topography a. Potential Impacts The Repowering Project will fully cover the 15 acre site. The entire 600+ acre Astoria ConEd Complex has been fully developed for utility operations for approximately 100 years. The surface topography across the NRG Facility site is flat. The surface elevation is

2 J.G. Titus and E.M. Strange (eds.), Coastal Elevations and Sensitivity to Sea Level Risk, U.S. EPA 430R07004 (2008)

4

APPENDIX III

approximately 17 feet above msl for the general site, while the planned site elevation will be standardized at 20 feet above msl for the larger CC-FAST units. The NRG Facility is paved and fully utilized and will remain so for the new CC-FAST trains and supporting infrastructure. b. Discussion and Findings. Potential impacts to geology, soils, and topography will be insignificant since the project is proposed to be developed on an existing industrially zoned site. As all of the NRG Facility is now utilized, no significant impacts will occur with respect to soils and subsurface conditions. 4. Water Resources – Water Supply, Wastewater and Storm Water Management a. Potential Impacts The NRG Facility currently utilizes potable water supply from the NYC water system for drinking water and plant uses. Precipitation runoff from the site is directed through an oil/water treatment unit and then discharged to the East River under a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit. The facility SPDES permit has been modified to account for the increase in discharge flow attributable to the reverse osmosis (RO) system reject water. The Repowered Facility will use potable water after reverse osmosis treatment for non-contact heat transfer in the heat recovery steam generators (HRSG). Some blow down water will be generated in the RO system. Since the water to be treated is high quality potable water, the amount of total and dissolved solids that will carry into the RO discharge will be modest. Maximum expected total dissolved solids (TDS) are expected to be less than 3500 mg/l. Total discharge rates will be 50-80 gallons per minute or less for each phase depending upon final engineering designs. This amounts to an average daily flow ranging from 72,000 gallons per day to 115,200 gallons per day per operating unit. b. Discussion and Findings. The project will operated within discharge limits established in the modified Industrial SPDES discharge permit. Within these discharge limits, no significant impacts to surface water quality are expected. 5. Ecological Resources – Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology, Fish and Wildlife a. Potential Impacts The NRG Facility site has been fully developed for electric generating and utility services for more than 100 years. There are no significant biological, terrestrial, or aquatic ecological resources on site. The existing NRG Facility does not include cooling water

5

APPENDIX III

intake structures (CWIS), nor does the Repowering Project involve the construction of any CWIS. Therefore, no impingement or entrainment issues are of concern with respect to the project. As discussed in Section 4, stormwater and RO reject water will be discharged to the East River in accordance with SPDES permit limits. b. Discussion and Findings. The project will not be constructed on a site that contains significant biological, terrestrial, or aquatic ecological resources, therefore, no impacts to these resources will occur as a result of project construction. The East River has improved in quality and does have a diverse aquatic population. The use of potable water for cooling purposes, and the lack of a CWIS, eliminates any potential to negatively impact biological resources of the East River. The design meets the Department’s regulatory requirements for Best Technology Available (BTA) (6 NYCRR 704.5). 6. Aesthetic and Visual Resources a. Potential Impacts New, co-located stacks will be constructed as part of the Repowering Project, approximately 250 feet in height. This is an increase from the 40 foot stacks at the existing facility, and will be the most visible new element associated with the project. A visual study was conducted in accordance with the DEC Visual Policy and included in the FEIS. This study assessed the potential visibility impacts associated with the Repowering Project, and resources determined to be potentially sensitive within a two-mile radius of the Repowering Project. The visual study included compilation of an inventory of aesthetic and visually sensitive resources, characterization of the overall landscape and setting, field reconnaissance and photographic documentation of view sheds, and assessment of these views. The study determined that the project site after completion of the Repowering Project will look almost identical to how it appears now with the exception of new stacks (ground-level turbines and infrastructure will not be visible to the public). b. Discussion and Findings. The Repowering Project is visually consistent in character with the area, conforms with the look of the existing neighborhood/study area, and does not change the character of the urban design of the area, does not affect any historic or cultural resources, and would be visible to existing residential and commercial areas only in very limited locations. The project would not significantly and adversely affect inventoried visual resources, nor affect the public’s ability to view and enjoy those resources. Therefore, DEC has determined that the project as proposed would not result in adverse visual or aesthetic impacts.

6

APPENDIX III

7. Historic, Cultural and Archeological Resources a. Potential Impacts The SEQR DEIS and FEIS incorporated the Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) for the previously proposed Berrians Power Project on the same site as the current project proposal (Appendix F of the FEIS). During the preparation of the Berrians EAS, an evaluation of significant historic, cultural, and archaeological resources of the 15-acre site was conducted. The Berrians EAS incorporated a June 2000 study conducted at the adjacent Charles B. Polletti Power Project Site. This study indicated that no significant cultural resources were present within the Polleti site, and that site was part of a larger area (including the Repowering Project site) that was partially submerged until early in the last century, and was subsequently filled. Any prehistoric sites that may have been in the project tract would not have survived the subsequent landfilling intact. All evidence indicates that no historical development took place within this area; thus, it has no potential for significant historic-period cultural resources. b. Discussion and Findings. The Repowering Project was reviewed by the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). In a letter dated April 15, 2008, OPRHP stated that based upon this review, it is the OPRHP's opinion that the project will have No Adverse Impact upon cultural resources in or eligible for inclusion in the State and National Register of Historic Places. 8. Noise a. Potential Impacts A noise analysis was conducted following the procedures provided in the NYC City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Guidelines. Table 6 of the Noise Impact Assessment Report (FEIS Appendix D) indicates that project noise levels will cause an increase of 1.0 dBA or less at the nearby residential areas. b. Discussion and Findings. The results of the analysis were evaluated against the CEQR noise impact criterion, the NYC Noise Code, and the NYC Zoning Resolution. The noise modeling analysis indicates that the modeled 1.0 dBA or less increase in noise resulting from the proposed Repowering Project at the nearby residential areas and at applicable industrial property lines will be in compliance with all applicable noise impact criteria and standards. This increase is less than the significance criterion established by CEQR and DEC noise guidance. This level is also in compliance with the NYC Noise Code and NYC Zoning Resolution criteria.

7

APPENDIX III

9. Traffic and Transportation a. Potential Impacts During construction and during normal operations, delivery of large equipment will accomplished by barge directly to the site, thereby avoiding local ground delivery by truck. Current NRG operations include routine service and maintenance of the existing 31 turbines. Delivery by barge is currently used for periodical delivery/removal of large equipment. It is anticipated that typical barge activity will be four deliveries/removals per year during construction and three deliveries/removals per year during normal operation of the Repowered Facility. The anticipated barge activity will decrease following full build out and start of normal operations for the new combined cycle units. The existing NRG Facility receives daily service by truck, typically less than 10 trucks per day including fuel deliveries and express shipping. Both Phase I and Phase II will result in the continuing use of the facility for electric generation. The expected truck traffic to provide normal operation under a no build alternative, a Phase I only alternative or a Phase II full repowering alternative still calls for only 10 truck trips per day. The plant employs a small staff of about 24 personnel. Most of these employees commute to work by car. Plant staffing is anticipated to remain at 24 personnel; therefore the number of commuter trips is expected to remain at the current number. b. Discussion and Findings. Barge loading and unloading operations are done within the Astoria ConEd Complex and are not accessible or visible to the public. The anticipated minor increase in barge traffic associated with construction of the two project phases is not anticipated to have any adverse impacts on traffic or transportation. The NYC Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) has developed a truck route network throughout the metropolitan area. Trucks must use the designated routes for either Local or Through Routes. Local Truck Routes are designated for trucks with an origin and destination for the purpose of delivery, loading or servicing within a borough. Trucks servicing the NRG Facility under any of the three project alternatives must use the Local Truck Route designations in the NYC Traffic Rules for access to the facility. Under normal traffic conditions, truck deliveries to the site are required to use Hazen St., 20th Ave., 21st St., and Astoria Blvd. As no net change in truck counts is expected under the three alternatives, no net differences in impacts from ground traffic and transportation is anticipated.

8

APPENDIX III

10. Socioeconomics a. Potential Impacts NRG has owned and operated the NRG Facility since 1999. For most of this period, and all of NRG’s ownership, the site has had a stable personnel base of approximately 24 staff. The ongoing annual staffing budget is approximately $4 million in salary and benefits. Using an economic impact multiplier for net impact on the community, NRG estimates that this translates into $20-24 million in net economic benefit per year for the current facility. Over the next 30 years of operation of the facility, that would be approximately $600-720 million in net economic impact. Under the no action alternative, the NRG Facility would continue to operate as is, providing a similar economic impact as noted above. However, the existing equipment is 40 years old. At some point in time, the existing equipment likely will no longer be cost-effective to operate and will need to be retired. Under the Phase I only alternative, two new CC-FAST units would replace the seven Westinghouse turbines. During the 30-month construction period for Phase I, a significant number of construction jobs would be created. NRG estimates that up to 350 construction employees would be required at peak labor force and that the 30-month construction labor wages and benefits budget would be in excess of $80 million. Using a 2x multiplier (a lower rate for temporary laborers is used here versus permanent NRG Facility staff) for calculating community net benefit, NRG estimates a net benefit to the community during the 2011-2016 period of an additional $160 million. Permanent staffing would remain as currently configured and the life span of Phase I is expected to be at least 30 years. However, the 24 Pratt & Whitney turbines would remain in place and in operation until they were no longer cost-effective to operate. At that juncture, only the new Phase I units would be operational, and NRG would likely reduce the number of permanent staff to the level necessary for operation of only the new Phase I units. Under the Phase II full repowering alternative, four new CC-FAST units would be in place and operational by 2016, replacing all 31 existing turbines. This full repowering would provide a stable operation and staffing level resulting in an annual salary and wages of $4.5 million and community pass through of $22.5 million to $27 million per year. During the five years of construction for the two phases, the net labor wages and benefits are projected to exceed $160 million with a peak labor force for each phase at over $350 million. This provides the potential net economic impact to the community of more than $320 million over the five-year construction period. Thus, the minimum estimated economic impact for the full Repowering Project is $1.1 billion over the next 30 years.

9

APPENDIX III

b. Discussion and Findings. The Repowering Project is expected to provide an economic benefit to the community over its projected 30+ year life. The Repowering Project will create construction-related jobs that will carry forward for as long as five years during the build out of both phases. Permanent jobs are expected to be maintained at the current level, but will likely be more secure with the installation of new reliable electrical generation facilities. 11. Environmental Justice a. Potential Impacts DEC’s Environmental Justice (EJ) Policy, CP-29, requires the preparation of an Environmental Justice analysis for projects requiring state or local approvals that may result in an adverse or disproportionate environmental impact on Potential Environmental Justice Areas. The purpose of CP-29 is to promote the fair involvement of all people in the DEC environmental permitting process. To comply with CP-29 requirements, the Project Sponsor prepared and implemented a Public Participation Plan (PPP) to provide information to the community and to the possible EJ areas. The PPP was approved by DEC on February 27, 2009. An additional requirement of CP-29 for this project was the preparation of a Health Outcome Data (HOD) analysis. The HOD Analysis was prepared according to DEC and NYS Department of Health (DOH) guidance. b. Discussion and Findings. Several Census Block Groups within the one-mile radius show minority and/or income levels that meet the criteria in DEC’s EJ Policy CP-29 and lie within Zip Code 11105. Air quality issues associated with this project pose the most significant potential adverse impacts as well as the potential for significant potential benefits. Without the Repowering Project, the existing, nearly 40-year-old, facility would continue to operate with inefficient equipment without emissions controls. Air pollutants would continue to be emitted from stacks that are significantly shorter than GEP stack design that would be required for a new or substantially modified facility. Thus, air quality impacts would occur, generally, in close proximity to the plant within the community of concern. With the Repowering Project, the stack heights would be increased to approximately 250 feet, enabling significant improvements in emissions dispersion, in addition to reductions in NOx and CO that will occur from operation of the new facility.

To carry out the approved PPP, the Project Sponsor provided public notices for public information availability and public meetings as part of the SEQR Scoping and DEIS processes. Information on the project was placed in two local Queens Library repositories as identified in the PPP, with information additionally provided on the project website at www.nrgenergy.com/news-center/astoria/documents.htm. The Project Sponsor met regularly with local community groups and elected officials with regard to the plant and the

10

APPENDIX III

proposed Repowering Project, including Community Board One and the Coalition Helping Organize a Kleaner Environment (CHOKE). Additionally, the Project Sponsor was an active participant in the Public Service Commission (PSC) Working Group VIII (WG VIII) for the Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard, which includes a number of the major EJ advocacy groups in the NYC metropolitan area. Information regrading the proposed Repowering Project was made available in this forum. The Project Sponsor has continued to update the community with regular meetings as outlined in the PPP, including a community update meeting on April 9, 2009 and two public hearings on May 20, 2010. A progress report was mailed to the members of the identified stakeholder list on August 2, 2010, along with a copy of a summary of responses to comments on the DEIS and complete applications. The HOD analysis prepared for this project concluded that the Astoria community does not demonstrate health outcome statistics that are atypical of the larger metropolitan area, and that the proposed Repowering Project will have no net effect with respect to increasing the number or size of environmental facilities located within the study area. 12. Land Use and Zoning a. Potential Impacts The entire Astoria ConEd Complex has been fully developed for utility and power generating facilities since approximately 1900. Since at least 1961, the entire Astoria ConEd Complex has been designated zoning classification M3-1, heavy manufacturing. The zoning code states, “These districts are designed to accommodate the essential heavy industrial uses which, therefore, cannot reasonably be expected to conform to those performance standards which are appropriate for most other types of industrial development. No new residences or community facilities are permitted.” b. Discussion and Findings. The M3-1 designation is intended for this type of use. No zoning variances or reclassifications are required by code or expected for this project. The zoning classification of M3-1 will remain in place regardless of whether the no action alternative, the Phase 1 only alternative, or the Phase II full repowering alternative is selected. Additionally, the zoning code does not permit new residences or community facilities in the M3-1 Zone, thus preventing any direct public contact with the NRG Facility.

11

APPENDIX III

13. Alternatives Analysis a. Potential Impacts The full repowering of the NRG Facility would be completed in two phases. Three

alternatives have been identified for further analysis and comparison.

1. No Action beyond continued operation of the existing, 40-year-old, facility (seven Westinghouse and 24 Pratt & Whitney turbines).

2. Phase I only replaces the seven functional and one damaged Westinghouse turbines with two new CC-FAST combined cycle trains.

3. Phase II full repowering, after completion of Phase I, replaces the 24 operating Pratt & Whitney turbines with two (2) new CC-FAST combined cycle trains.

b. Discussion and Findings. i. No Action Alternative In this alternative, the existing 40-year-old turbines remain in place and fully operational and no repowering would occur. This alternative results in the following effects:

• No reduction in emissions would occur since the old turbines do not have emissions controls.

• Emissions would continue to be released through the existing 40-foot short stacks rather than the proposed 250-foot stacks.

• No avoided emissions are achieved since old equipment is not removed from service at the outset of the construction for each phase. More than 3,000 tons of regulated pollutant emissions (NOx, CO, VOC, PM10, and SO2) would be avoided during construction.

• No High Electrical Demand Day (HEDD) NOx reductions would be achieved, since the existing NRG Facility would continue to operate at the high end of actual and permitted potential emissions rates for electric generating facilities throughout the NYC area, and during days when unhealthy ozone smog days are more likely to occur. This alternative would not accomplish goals set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding Among the States of the Ozone Transport Commission Concerning the Incorporation of High Electrical Demand Day Emission Reduction Strategies into Ozone Attainment State Implementation Planning (HEDD MOU).3

3 For additional discussion of the HEDD MOU, see Section 13.0 Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM), available: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/37141.html.

12

APPENDIX III

• No improvement in energy efficiency and fuel consumption rates per Btu of fuel

consumed would occur since the old, low efficiency units would remain in full operation. The existing 40-year-old units no longer have upgrade pathways as the manufacturers now invest their research in newer technology models.

• Electric generating capacity would remain at the maximum output of 600 MW in a peaking-only mode rather than the proposed 1,040 MW of intermediate mode capacity as proposed for the repowering.

• Continuing use of vintage 40-year-old turbines increases the likelihood of future maintenance problems and potential catastrophic failures of the equipment. Reliability of the equipment also diminishes with age while maintenance costs increase.

• An additional 50-80 gallons per minute of RO reject water would not be created and discharged to the East River.

ii. Phase I Only Alternative A Phase I only alternative would result in the construction of 520 MW of new, intermediate mode generating capacity and would replace the 100 MW of peaking-only capacity provided by the seven Westinghouse turbines. This alternative results in the following effects:

• NOx and CO would decrease as a result of the shutdown of the Westinghouse turbines. Emissions of PM2.5 would be capped and emissions of other criteria pollutants would be increased to below significance thresholds.

• Emission avoidance would occur as the Westinghouse units would go offline at the outset of the construction of Phase I.

• The 24 Pratt & Whitney turbines would be left in place and would remain fully operational. The Pratt & Whitney turbines would continue to emit from the 40-foot stacks allowing for air dispersion of emissions to remain in the local community rather than disperse rapidly from the taller stacks for the new combined cycle units.

• A Phase I only alternative does add significant incremental quick start, ramping, dual-fuel and black start capability over the no action alternative that would enhance reliability and support increasing power system needs.

iii. Phase II Full Repowering Alternative Phase II full repowering alternative provides significant net reductions in actual projected emissions of NOx and CO. This alternative results in the following effects:

• Phase II full repowering alternative results in more than 3,000 tons of emissions avoided as each phase takes old turbines offline at the outset of construction.

• Phase II full repowering alternative could provide 60-75% of DEC’s commitment for HEDD NOx emission reductions under the HEDD MOU.

13

APPENDIX III

• The Phase II full repowering alternative provides a significantly increased electric

reliability and reserve basis for NYC as required by the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) and NYC’s PlaNYC.

• The new CC-FAST trains would have a heat rate of less than 7,500 Btu/kWh as opposed to the old turbines with heat rates ranging from 14,000 to 19,000 Btu/kWh.

• Phase II full repowering alternative incorporates the maximum total system reliability benefits of the project with the full retirement of all 31 existing turbines to be replaced with four highly efficient combined cycle units totaling 1,040 MW that incorporate quick start and ramping operating modes in combination with black start and dual fuel capability. These attributes complement the expanding power system needs associated with the deployment of significant quantities of intermittent renewable energy resources and associated increases in system variability and load fluctuations.

The upgrade of the NRG Facility to modern, high efficiency equipment with emissions controls provides numerous benefits in comparison to the no action alternative. The full Repowering Project provides significant benefits beyond those available from the Phase I only alternative. Phase II full repowering alternative provides significant air quality and electric system benefits and is the clear and distinct choice for repowering the NRG Facility. Therefore, DEC has determined that Alternative # iii, the Full Repowering Alternative, is the Preferred Alternative. 14. Cumulative Impacts To assess the cumulative air quality impacts of the Repowering Project and surrounding proposed/existing electric generation projects, NRG reviewed recently conducted cumulative air quality modeling analyses for other power projects in the area. Results of this review demonstrated that these new and existing projects comply with the NAAQS and New York SAAQS for the Astoria area and the New York metropolitan area as a whole. The proposed Repowering Project, along with the modifications at the existing facilities modeled previously, will reduce the cumulative air quality impacts by further decreasing the pollutant emissions-loading in the area. The Repowered Facility will be nearly 100% more fuel efficient than the existing equipment and will have 73% more generating capacity than the existing units. The Repowering Project will result in a substantial net, positive effect on air quality by dramatically reducing the emissions of NOx and CO. While there will be a small increase in emissions of PM10, PM2.5, and SO2 at maximum operating capacity, they will be capped below significance thresholds. The increase of stack heights will also improve dispersion and, thereby, improve local community air quality. The shutdown of old turbines at the start of both construction phases results in an additional 3,000+ tons of emissions reductions over the five (5) year construction period. Further, NRG’s electric generating operations are

14

APPENDIX III

consistent with past site usage and with the uses throughout the larger Astoria ConEd Complex. The complex site has been used for electric generating for more than 100 years. Thus, NRG’s operations will remain consistent with the existing land use patterns in the local community. Additional construction of new electric generating facilities in the NYC area would require installation of equipment meeting the Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) standards for non-attainment pollutants and the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) standards for attainment pollutants. Therefore, repowering of old generating facilities throughout the area would generally result in net air quality benefits by replacing old, high emissions generating facilities with new state-of-the-art equipment meeting the very low BACT and LAER emissions targets. The NRG Facility cannot be expanded beyond the proposed 1,040 MW Repowering Project since the facility will fully occupy all 15 acres with the new equipment. However, other existing sources within the metropolitan area could expand or repower in the future. PlaNYC addresses the need for substantial expansion (up to 3,000 MW) of new or repowered generating capacity within the metropolitan area. Additionally, the NYS Energy Plan and the NYISO both project significant generating capacity expansions to meet expected system reliability needs in the future. A major objective these plans share in common is the desire to repower or replace old peaking-only units that are inefficient and higher emitting (often lacking air pollution controls). Therefore, development of electrical generation in the metropolitan area in conformance with these established plans can be expected to have a positive net cumulative impact on air quality and system reliability throughout the region. 15. Growth Inducing Aspects Repowering the NRG Facility is intended to provide additional intermediate mode and peaking electric generating capacity to the NYC load pocket. The NYISO requires that reserve capacity and peaking capacity be located within the NYC load pocket. The NYC PlaNYC calls for repowering of old inefficient and high emissions equipment with new, low emissions, high efficiency equipment. The proposed Repowering Project meets those needs. Although the electrical generation capacity will increase from 600 MW of peaking-only capacity to 1,040 MW of intermediate mode capacity, this increase serves to meet defined service requirements and the projected expansion in electric consumption for NYC as detailed in Section 7.3 of the FEIS. Thus, the Repowering Project does not provide growth inducements, but merely meets already projected demand. 16. Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources The Repowering Project will use far less fuel than the existing NRG Astoria facility to produce the equivalent amount of electricity. This equates to lower incremental energy costs and emissions. The net facility increase of 440 MW for the Repowering Project provides enough additional electricity to power 35,000 homes. When dispatched, the Repowering Project will help avoid the need to operate more expensive peaking resources.

15

APPENDIX III

17. Coastal Zone Consistency The project is located within the designated coastal zone. Article 42 of the NYS Executive Law and its implementing regulations found at 19 NYCRR Part 600 require that a proposed project within the coastal zone be consistent with the state’s coastal management policies, or if a Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP) exists, with the LWRP. The NYC LWRP designates the boundaries of NYC’s coastal zone and establishes its policies for the use and development of the city’s waterfront within that designated zone. In general, these policies are designed to promote and balance economic development (including the preservation of industrial areas), environmental protection and public access to the waterfront. The current LWRP was developed in 1999 pursuant to federal and state legislation establishing the NYS Coastal Zone Management Program, and approved by the NYS Department of State and the US Department of Commerce in 2002. The previous LWRP had been in effect since 1982 and posed 56 separate and overlapping policies to be considered in assessing consistency. The overall principles and requirements in the 1982 LWRP were reinforced in the 2002 LWRP, however, the new program consolidated the old policies into ten main categories.4 The new LWRP also clarified that a project is deemed consistent with the LWRP if it will not substantially interfere with any of these policies and, where practicable, will advance one or more of these polices. In 2001, before the current LWRP was approved, the Project Sponsor prepared a coastal consistency analysis in accordance with the1982 LWRP for the formerly proposed Berrians project, which was to be located on the same site as the current proposal. (Appendix H to the Berrians EAS, attached to the FEIS as Appendix F). As stated previously, the Berrians project was never pursued, however, DEC approved the use of the EAS, with supplemental studies where necessary, to be incorporated by reference into the DEIS and FEIS for the Repowering Project since much of the analysis completed for Berrians was relevant and applicable to the Repowering Project. The waterfront consistency analysis in the Berrians EAS was comprehensive and the analysis required for the Repowering Project is fundamentally the same. The NRG Facility is located in a heavily industrial area reserved for power generation. Although the NRG Facility is within the designated coastal zone, it is not located on the water and does not control the waterfront. The public has no direct accessibility to the 600+ acre Astoria ConEd Complex, including the waterfront property local within the complex. The Repowering Project is consistent with the policies of the LWRP in that it maximizes the benefits derived from economic development and environmental management. Therefore, the Repowering Project complies with all state and local coastal zone requirements. Accordingly, DEC finds that the project is consistent with the LWRP coastal policies.

4 The ten policies promote, where appropriate, residential and commercial development; water-dependant and industrial uses; commercial and recreational boating; protection of coastal ecosystems; water quality; flooding and erosion control; solid and hazardous waste management; public access; scenic resources; and historical and cultural resources.

16

APPENDIX III

APPENDIX III

Certification To Approve/Fund/Undertake: Having considered the draft and final Environmental Impact Statement and having considered the

preceding written facts and conclusions relied on to meet the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 .11, this Statement of Findings certifies that:

I. The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met; and

2. Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, the action is the one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that were identified as practicable.

3. (And if applicable) Consistent with the applicable policies· of Article 42 of the Executive Law, as implemented by 19 NYCRR Part 600.5, this action will achieve a balance between the protection of the environment and the need to accommodate social and economic considerations.

Name of Agency

Stephen Tomasik

Signature of Resp nsible Official Name of Responsible Official

Environmental Analyst 2 D October 4 2010 Ti tie of Responsible Official

Address of Agency

New York State Department of Environmenta l Conservation Division of Environmental Permits 625 Broadway, 4th Floor Albany, New York 12233-1750

cc: Other Involved Agencies Applicant

17

Date