New York City Study of Potential WTE sites

7/31/2019 New York City Study of Potential WTE sites

1/88

New York City

Evaluation of New and Emerging WasteManagement and Recycling Technologies

Phase 3: Demonstration ProjectSiting Study and Preliminary Investigation

March 2012

Prepared by:

Alternative Resources, Inc.1732 Main Street

Concord, MA 01742(978) 371-2054

In Association with the City of New York


2/88

ii

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... v

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background and Study Objectives ............................................................. 11.2 Overview of Siting Study ............................................................................ 21.3 Content of Report ...................................................................................... 3

2.0 SITING CRITERIA ................................................................................................ 4

2.1 First-Level Screening Criteria .................................................................... 42.2 Second-Level Comparative Criteria ........................................................... 4

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL SITES ........................................................... 9

3.1 Overview of Methodology .......................................................................... 93.2 Initial Site Identification .............................................................................. 93.3 Application of First-Level Screening Criteria ............................................ 103.4 Potential Sites for Comparative Evaluation .............................................. 11

4.0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF SITES ........................................................ 12

4.1 Overview of Comparative Evaluation Process ......................................... 124.2 Brooklyn Brooklyn Union Gas Company (Varick Ave.

and Lombardy St.) ................................................................................... 16

4.3 Brooklyn Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands Ave WastewaterTreatment Plant (Van Siclen Ave. and Seaview Ave.) ............................. 21

4.4 Manhattan Randalls Island (FDNY Property) ....................................... 274.5 Queens Phelps Dodge Refinery (57th Ave. along Newtown Creek) ...... 334.6 Queens Bowery Bay (near Rikers Island Bridge along 19th Ave) ......... 394.7 Queens Con Ed Astoria Complex (near 31st St. and 20th Ave) ............. 454.8 Staten Island Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility(North of Channel) ..... 514.9 Staten Island Rossville Site (Arthur Kill Rd.) ......................................... 574.10 Staten Island Caracci Property (Arthur Kill Rd. and Chemical Lane) .... 63

5.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE EVALUATION FINDINGS............................... 69

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 75

6.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 756.2 Recommendations ................................................................................... 75


3/88

iii

List of Tables

Table 2.1-1. First-Level Screening Criteria for Site Identification ................................... 5Table 2.2-1. Second-Level Screening Criteria for Comparative Site Evaluation ............ 6

Table 3.2-1 Potential Sites Identified for First-Level Screening ................................... 9Table 3.3-1 Removed Sites due to Existing Wetlands and Floodplains ...................... 11

Table 4.1-1. Sites Identified for Comparative Evaluation ............................................. 12Table 4.1-2. Type and Source of Information for Application of Comparative

Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................... 12Table 4.2-1. Brooklyn Union Gas Company Key Site Information ............................ 16Table 4.2-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Brooklyn Union

Gas Company Site ................................................................................... 18Table 4.2-3. Comparative Analysis of Brooklyn Union Gas Company ......................... 19Table 4.3-1. Penn & Fountain Landfills Flatlands Ave WWTP Key Site Information . 21

Table 4.3-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Penn & Fountain Landfills/Flatlands Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant ....................................... 23Table 4.3-3. Comparative Evaluation of Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands Avenue

Wastewater Treatment Plant .................................................................. 24Table 4.4-1. Randalls Island (FDNY Property) Key Site Information ........................ 27Table 4.4-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for Randalls Island

(FDNY Property) ..................................................................................... 30Table 4.4-3. Comparative Evaluation of Randalls Island (FDNY Property) ................. 31Table 4.5-1. Phelps Dodge Refinery Key Site Information ........................................ 33Table 4.5-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Phelps Dodge Refinery ...... 33Table 4.5-3. Comparative Evaluation of Phelps Dodge Refinery ................................. 35Table 4.6-1. Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave. near Rikers Island Bridge)

Key Site Information ............................................................................... 39Table 4.6-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave.

near Rikers Island Bridge) ...................................................................... 41Table 4.6-3. Comparative Evaluation of Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave.)........................ 42Table 4.7-1. Con Ed Astoria Complex (near 31st St. and 20th Ave.)

Key Site Information ................................................................................ 45Table 4.7-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Con Ed Astoria Complex

(near 31st. St. and 20th Ave.) ................................................................... 47Table 4.7-3. Comparative Evaluation of Con Ed Astoria Complex ............................... 48Table 4.8-1. Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility (North of Channel)

Key Site Information ................................................................................ 51Table 4.8-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Fresh Kills Landfill

(North of Channel) .................................................................................. 53Table 4.8-3. Comparative Evaluation of Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility(North ofChannel) 54Table 4.9-1. Staten Island Rossville Site Key Site Information .............................. 57Table 4.9-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Staten Island Rossville Site 59Table 4.9-3. Comparative Evaluation of Staten Island Rossville Site .......................... 60Table 4.10-1. Staten Island Caracci Site Key Site Information ................................ 63


4/88

iv

Table 4.10-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Staten Island Caracci Site . 65Table 4.10-3. Comparative Evaluation of Staten Island Caracci Site ............................. 66

List of Figures

Figure 4.2-1. Site Location Map Brooklyn Union Gas Company ................................ 17Figure 4.3-1. Site Location Map Penn & Fountain Landfills/Flatlands Ave WWTP .... 22Figure 4.3-2. Aerial Satellite Photo Penn & Fountain Landfills/Flatlands Ave WWTP 22Figure 4.4-1. Site Location Map Randalls Island and Greater Vicinity....................... 28Figure 4.4-2. Site Location Map Randalls Island and Site ......................................... 28Figure 4.4-3. Aerial Satellite Photo Randalls Island (FDNY Property) ....................... 29Figure 4.5-1. Site Location Map Phelps Dodge Refinery ........................................... 34Figure 4.5-2. Aerial Satellite Photo Phelps Dodge Refinery ....................................... 34Figure 4.6-1. Site Location Map Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave.) .................................. 40Figure 4.6-2. Aerial Satellite Photo Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave.) ............................. 40Figure 4.7-1. Site Location Map Con Ed Astoria Complex (near 31st St. and 20th Ave.)46

Figure 4.7-2. Aerial Satellite Photo Con Ed Astoria Complex (near 31

st

St. / 20

th

Ave.)46Figure 4.8-1. Site Location Map Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility(North of Channel) ................................................................................... 52

Figure 4.8-2. Aerial Satellite Photo Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility(North of Channel) ................................................................................... 52

Figure 4.9-1. Site Location Map Staten Island Rossville Site ..................................... 58Figure 4.9-2. Aerial Satellite Photo Staten Island Rossville Site ................................ 58Figure 4.10-1. Site Location Map Staten Island Caracci Site .................................... 64Figure 4.10-2. Aerial Satellite Photo Staten Island Caracci Site ................................ 64

Appendices

Appendix A: FEMA FIRM Maps (Floodplain Mapping)Appendix B: USFWS National Wetlands Inventory MappingAppendix C: Endangered Species Documentation


5/88

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

New York City exports approximately 11,000 tons per day of residential and institutional

waste, also known as Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), because it does not have a wastedisposal facility within its municipal limits. Waste export is a component part of the CitysComprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP), which creates a 20-year solidwaste management system that is cost-effective, reliable, and environmentally responsible.

In addition to creating a 20-year export program, the SWMP also calls for the City toinvestigate new and emerging conversion technologies that could provide alternatives toconventional solid waste disposalnamely landfilling and conventional waste-to-energyfor three reasons:

Diversification. By diversifying the means of disposal available, the City will be in a

stronger position to insulate itself from the effects of an increasingly monopolisticnational waste management industry.

Sustainable resource reuse and recovery. New and emerging technologies havethe potential to recover and reuse a greater portion of the solid waste stream thanlandfilling, and potentially can do so in a more sustainable manner than conventionalwaste-to-energy technology.

Reliability and risk. If new and emerging technologies provided disposal optionsthat could be sited in or near the City, this would decrease reliance on other states,and reduce the risk of federal legislative obstacles that could undermine component

parts of the Citys export plan to other states in the future.

A key component of the SWMP is the development of a three-part study, The Evaluation ofNew and Emerging Solid Waste Management Technologies(Evaluation). AlternativeResources, Inc. prepared the Evaluation for the City of New York.

An Overview of the Evaluation

New and emerging technologies are defined in Section 5.2 of the SWMP as technologies(e.g. biological, chemical, mechanical and thermal processes) that are not currently inwidespread commercial use in the United States, or that have only recently become

commercially operational. Proven, commercial solid waste management processes andtechnologies with widespread use in the United States, such as conventional waste-to-energy (i.e. incineration), landfilling, and stand-alone material recovery facilities, were notconsidered in the Evaluation. Additionally, aerobic MSW composting/co-composting was notpart of the study, as DSNY already conducted a separate and thorough evaluation ofaerobic MSW composting/co-composting.


6/88

vi

In its first Phase, the Evaluation conducted a wide search to broadly define the range of newand emerging technologies to assess. Forty-three (43) technologies were identified that fellinto five broad categories:

Five Categories of New and Emerging Technologies

Thermal/Gasification. Thermal technologies use or produce a significant quantity ofheat during the course of processing municipal solid waste. Types of productsresulting from thermal processing include syngas (i.e., synthesis gas composed ofhydrogen gases, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, which is combusted toproduce electricity); char (a carbon-based solid residue); and organic liquids (e.g.,light hydrocarbon).

Digestion (Aerobic and Anaerobic). Digestion is the reduction of the organiccomponents of MSW through decomposition by microbes, accompanied by theevolution of liquids and gases. The biological process of digestion may be aerobic oranaerobic, depending on whether air is introduced into the process. Anaerobic

digestion produces a biogas, which is primarily methane and carbon dioxide, and acompost. Biogas can be combusted to generate electricity. Aerobic digestionproduces compost that may be used as a soil amendment or fertilizer; aerobicdigestion does not produce a biogas.

Hydrolysis. Hydrolysis is a chemical reaction in which water reacts with anothersubstance to form two or more new substances. Specifically with relation to MSW,hydrolysis refers to an acid-catalyzed reaction of the cellulose components of thewaste (e.g., paper, food waste, yard waste) with water to produce sugars. Sugars arethen converted to ethanol or other products such as levulinic acid, a commonly usedchemical feedstock for producing specialty chemicals.

Chemical Processing. The study identified the chemical process ofdepolymerization, which is the permanent breakdown of large molecular compoundsinto smaller, relatively simple compounds as a potential new and emerging wasteconversion technology. The process converts the organic components of municipalsolid waste into energy products (steam and electricity), oil, specialty chemicals, andcarbon solids.

Mechanical Processing for Fiber Recovery. Technologies included in this categorymechanically process municipal solid waste to recover fiber for use in paper making.This technical category includes new and emerging refuse-derived fuel technologies

that produce a clean source of secondary fiber.

The 43 technologies identified in Phase 1 of the Evaluation were advanced through threelevels of scrutiny: 1). the selection of technologies to be evaluated; 2). preliminary review;and 3). a detailed, comparative review of the more developed technologies. Fourteen (14) ofthe 43 technologies initially identified advanced to the most detailed level of comparativereview, and were compared to conventional waste-to-energy, which is the most common


7/88

vii

method used today for reducing the quantity of post-recycled waste being landfilled. These14 technologies fell into anaerobic digestion, thermal, or hydrolysis categories.

Based on success demonstrated outside of the United States by several companies, Phase1 of the Evaluation found that anaerobic digestion and thermal processing technologies are

commercially implemented outside of the U.S., and could be considered for commercialapplication in New York City, with suitable project definition and risk sharing between thepublic and a private sponsor.

Comparison to Conventional Waste-to-Energy

New and emerging technologies offer certain economic and environmental advantages incomparison to conventional waste-to-energy. Most notably, the emission levels from newand emerging technologies have the potential to be lower than with conventional waste-to-energy. The thermal technologies (gasification) and anaerobic digestion produce andcombust a synthesis gas or biogas, rather than a solid fuel (MSW). Through the combustion

of a gas (compared to combustion of a solid, like MSW), emissions, particularly for dioxinsand heavy metals, would likely be lower. Overall, new and emerging technologies are alsopotentially advantageous because they may result in less residual waste requiring disposal.However, market development would be required for the end-products of these processes.Lack of successful market development would increase the disposal rate and the overallcosts for these technologies.

While thermal processing and anaerobic digestion technologies using MSW as a feedstockare being commercially applied outside the United States, these technologies have limiteddomestic operating experience when compared to conventional waste-to-energytechnology. Currently, there are close to 100 conventional waste-to-energy facilities inoperation in the U.S. processing a combined total of nearly 95,000 tons per day (tpd) ofMSW. These waste-to-energy facilities have a wide range of rated design capacities, withthe largest being approximately 3,000 tpd. Of the new and emerging technologies, thermalprocessing is expected to be comparable in facility size and flexibility, with the addition ofmultiple modules. Anaerobic digestion technologies generally have lower design capacities.

Applications for Handling New York Citys Municipal Solid Waste

Based on the findings of the Phase 1 Study, the City initiated a focused, independentverification and validation of information for the most advanced anaerobic digestion, thermalprocessing, and hydrolysis technologies. This process was to determine if development ofone or more pilot facilities for New York City may be warranted as part of a long-term planfor commercial application of such technologies. Phase 2 of the Evaluation provided furtherevidence that the advanced technology categories can reasonably meet potentialexpectations for application within New York City. Such expectations include diversion ofMSW from landfill disposal through beneficial use of the waste, favorable environmentalperformance, and economic viability. To accomplish this goal, the Phase 2 Study had thefollowing objectives:


8/88

viii

Identify technologies representative of the advanced technology categories,whose sponsors are willing and able to provide detailed, relevant information for theCity's focused verification and validation process.

Complete an independent technical review and evaluation of the participating

technologies, including major system components, site size requirements, mass andenergy balances, operating data, products, residue requiring landfill disposal, andtechnology transfer issues.

Complete an independent environmental review and evaluation of theparticipating technologies, including air pollutant emissions, water usage, wastewaterdischarge, product quality, and residue quality.

Technical, environmental, and economic evaluations were conducted for anaerobicdigestion and thermal processing because these technologies are in commercialdevelopment within the United States. The Phase 2 study confirmed, through independent

verification and validation of information, Phase 1s previous findings.

Key findings of the Phase 2 Study are summarized below:

Technical Findings. Anaerobic digestion and thermal processing technologiesare in commercial operation internationally for mixed MSW, and could besuccessfully applied in New York City. Reference facilities reviewed as part of thePhase 2 Study provide a demonstration of performance of these technologies.With two exceptions, these reference facilities are commercially operating andprocessing mixed MSW.

Technical information associated with the reference facilities was reviewed, and tothe extent possible, owners, operators and/or other parties affiliated with thefacilities were contacted as references for facility performance. An independenttechnical review and evaluation of mass and energy balances, includingindependent calculations of energy generating efficiency of the technologies, wascompleted. Recovery rates of recyclable materials and process products wereconfirmed, along with quantities of residue requiring landfill disposal. Equipmentconfigurations and site layouts were reviewed, in consideration of land arearequired to support project development and operation.

Environmental Findings. Environmental findings show that, in general,

anaerobic digestion and thermal processing technologies have the potential tooffer better environmental performance than waste-to-energy facilities, includinglower air emissions, increased beneficial use of waste, and reduced reliance onlandfilling for residual waste disposal. The environmental findings are based onindependent calculation, review and inter-comparison of environmentalperformance, including air pollutant emissions, water usage and wastewaterdischarge.


9/88

ix

Economic Findings. Recognizing that the economic analysis performed is of aplanning level only, economic findings indicate that anaerobic digestion andthermal processing technologies (on a commercial scale) could be competitivewith costs for current long-term export options. These findings are based onapplication of an economic model that considered capital costs, operating and

maintenance costs, and project revenues, for a long-term (20-year) operatingperiod. The analysis included two project delivery approaches: implementationunder a privately owned and financed design/ build/own/operate or "DBOO"project delivery approach, and implementation under a publicly owned andfinanced design/build/operate or "DBO" project delivery approach.

Technology Transfer. Based on the analyses conducted for this phase of theEvaluation, no issues have been identified that would prevent transfer of designand operation experience from commercial operation overseas to application ofthe technologies in the United States. Project-specific and site-specific issueswould need to be addressed during development of an Implementation Plan, such

as identification of a site, definition of regulatory requirements, verification ofmarkets for products, and (for some technologies) consideration of equipmentcomponents and configuration for preprocessing waste of the specificcharacteristics as generated in New York City. In particular, more space-intensiveprocesses (those requiring more than 30 acres) are not practical to site withinNew York City.

Identifying Potential Sites for a Pilot Facility

After the Phase 2 study resulted in the need to advance the SWMPs directive to determinewhether any new and emerging technologies should be candidates for one or more pilot

facilities for New York City, the goal of Phase 3 of the Evaluation was to identify and performa preliminary investigation of potential sites for a new and emerging technology facility. TheEvaluation recognizes that developing a demonstration facility requires additional analysisto determine the technical and economic feasibility of a specific project.A SWMP-established task force of 11 members representing the Mayor, the City Counciland the five borough presidents (the Task Force) engaged in a process to accomplish thisgoal, which is outlined in this report. The key elements of this Phase 3 Siting Study were:

Development of Siting Criteria. The established criteria included first-levelscreening that focused on key site characteristics (e.g. size, zoning, site access,wetlands, utility availability, potential interconnection availability, etc.) necessary for

successful project development. The established criteria also included second-levelcomparative criteria, which were intended to allow for inter-comparison of theparticular strengths and/or limitations of the various sites.

Identification of Potential Sites. Based on the first-level criteria, 19 potential siteswere identified. As part of the site identification and first-level screening process,input was solicited from Task Force representatives from City agencies, the CityCouncil and the borough presidents offices on potential sites to evaluate using thesiting criteria.


10/88

x

Screening of Potential Sites for General Suitability. After consultation with theTask Force representatives, nine (9) potential sites located in Brooklyn, Manhattan,Staten Island, and Queens were identified for comparative evaluation.

Comparative Evaluation of Sites. Comparative evaluation was completed for the

nine identified sites using the second-level comparative evaluation criteria. For eachsite and each criterion, a determination was made based on available information asto whether the site was "Acceptable", "Advantageous", or "Highly Advantageous" forthat criterion. Weighting was not assigned to the criteria and no numerical scoring orranking was conducted. The purpose of the comparative evaluation was to furtherevaluate whether there were sites available in the City that could be consideredsuitable for a pilot project. Consequently, sites were grouped into categories,identified as "Not Acceptable", "Acceptable," and "Advantageous or HighlyAdvantageous". The table below provides an overall summary of the comparativeevaluation results.


11/88

xi

Evaluation Summary

The Evaluation for New and Emerging Waste Management Technology concluded thatthermal processing and anaerobic digestion were the two technologies that might be applied

Overview Summary of Comparative Evaluation Results

Not Acceptable(a) AcceptableAdvantageous or

Highly Advantageous(b)

Penn & FountainLandfills/FlatlandsAve WWTP(Brooklyn)(c)

Randalls Island FDNY Property(Manhattan)(d)

Phelps DodgeRefinery (Queens)

Bowery Bay along19th Ave near RikersIsland Bridge(Queens)

Con Ed AstoriaComplex (Queens)

Rossville Site alongArthur Kill Road

(Staten Island)

Caracci Site alongArthur Kill Road(Staten Island)

Fresh Kills Landfill rock crushing site(Staten Island) )

Brooklyn Union GasCompany

(Brooklyn)(e)

a. Not Acceptable means the site did not meet the acceptable ranking forone or more of the criteria.

b. Advantageous or Highly Advantageous means the site rankedadvantageous or highly advantageous for six (i.e., half) or more of thecriteria.

c. The Penn & Fountain Landfills/Flatlands Ave WWTP site did not meet theacceptable criterion for Site Size and Configuration, due to the presenceof a significant amount of wetlands on the site.

d. The Randalls Island - FDNY site did not meet the acceptable criterion forProperty Acquisition, because the site is not available; the site is currentlyoccupied by the FDNY New York City Fire Academy and in active use asan FDNY training facility.

e. Owned by National Grid (formerly Brooklyn Union Gas). Site is a potentialbrownfield requiring extensive investigation and potential remediation.

Additionally, the site contains gas infrastructure that requires a buffer zonefor safety and security reasons.


12/88

xii

commercially in New York City given that they are the technologies with the most extensivedevelopment, and that there are viable sites for demonstrating these new technologies.


13/88

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Study Objectives

In 2004, New York City (City) completed Phase 1 of an evaluation of new and emerging

solid waste management conversion technologies to determine if there should be a role forsuch technologies in the City's Solid Waste Management Plan.12 The Phase 1 Studyincluded a review of 43 technologies, categorized by type: thermal, digestion (aerobic andanaerobic), hydrolysis, chemical processing, and mechanical processing for fiber recovery.Through the Phase 1 Study, the City determined that the technology categories ofanaerobic digestion and thermal processing were developed the furthest. Both of thesetechnology types are currently in commercial operation for mixed municipal solid waste(MSW) outside of the United States, at capacities greater than 50,000 tons per year(i.e., 137 tons per day, based on 365 days per year), with commercial meaning a facility is inoperation and accepting MSW as an established, contracted disposal mechanism. Theother technology categories were advancing to commercial application (i.e., hydrolysis) or

were at a less advanced stage of development. Based on the Phase 1 evaluation, the Citydetermined that new and emerging technologies could play a role in the long-termmanagement of the City's municipal waste, but that further evaluation and demonstrationwere needed to confirm that finding.

As the next step in the evaluation process, the City initiated focused, independentverification and validation of information for eight of the most advanced, demonstratedanaerobic digestion, thermal processing and hydrolysis technologies. The objectives of thePhase 2 Study were (1) to provide a more detailed evaluation of the more advancedtechnologies and to independently verify and validate information to the extent possible; and(2) to address technical, environmental and cost issues that would arise during projectdevelopment, and specifically City application of such technologies. The Phase 2 Study3confirmed the findings of the Phase 1 Study and determined that it was warranted to furtherconsider development of one or more demonstration facilities for New York City. One of therecommended next steps was to identify and investigate potential sites for one or moredemonstration facilities. The identification and preliminary evaluation of potential sites is thesubject of this Phase 3 Study.

1Alternative Resources, Inc., Evaluation of New and Emerging Solid Waste Management Technologies,

September 2004.2 City of New York Department of Sanitation, Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, September 20063 Alternative Resources, Inc., Focused Verification and Validation of Advanced Solid Waste ManagementConversion Technologies Phase 2 Study, March 2006.


14/88

2

1.2 Overview of Siting Study

The key elements of this Phase 3 Siting Study were:

development of siting criteria;

identification of potential sites; screening of potential sites for general suitability; and comparative evaluation of sites that met the screening criteria.

The established siting criteria included first-level screening criteria, which focused on keysite characteristics necessary for successful project development, as well as second-levelcomparative criteria, which were intended to allow for inter-comparison of the particularstrengths and/or limitations of the various sites. Draft criteria were presented to the TaskForce, convened to assist in the siting process for one or more conversion technologydemonstration facilities. Comments from the Task Force were incorporated into the finalsiting criteria.

Following development of the siting criteria, 19 potential sites were identified, with at leastone site located within each of the Citys five boroughs. These potential sites werescreened using the first-level screening criteria. As part of the site identification and first-level screening process, Task Force representatives provided input on the potential sitesand to determine if other potential sites should be considered. Information was alsopresented to and discussed with the Task Force at scheduled meetings. Following theseactivities, nine potential sites located within four of the Citys boroughs (Brooklyn,Manhattan, Staten Island, and Queens) were identified for comparative evaluation.

ARI completed the comparative evaluation for the nine identified sites using the second-

level comparative evaluation criteria. Together with City representatives, ARI conducted avisual inspection of each site. In addition, ARI gathered readily-available information frompublic sources, including the Citys GIS data base, NYCEDCs PLUTO database ofproperties, relevant street mapping, and other State and Federal resources (e.g., U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on-lineassessment of federally-listed endangered species, and Federal Emergency ManagementAgency Flood Insurance Rate Maps).

1.3 Content of Report

This report of the Phase 3 Siting Study includes the following sections:

Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Siting Criteria Section 3: Identification of Potential Sites Section 4: Comparative Evaluation of Potential Sites Section 5: Summary of Comparative Evaluation Findings Section 6: Conclusions and Recommendations


15/88

3

2.0 SITING CRITERIA

At the beginning of the Siting Study, ARI developed siting criteria in cooperation with theTask Force. The established criteria included first-level screening criteria and second-levelcomparative criteria. The first-level screening criteria and the second-level comparative

criteria are further described below.

2.1 First-Level Screening Criteria

First-level screening criteria were established to allow for preliminary, high-level screeningof potential sites for overall suitability. The first-level screening criteria focused on key sitecharacteristics that are necessary for, or otherwise would facilitate, successful projectdevelopment (e.g., site size, zoning, access, and utility/potential interconnection availability).The first-level criteria also incorporated regulatory requirements of the New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation applicable to siting solid waste managementfacilities, as codified in Subpart 360-1.7 (Permit Requirements, Exemptions and Variances).

These regulations restrict or otherwise limit or regulate development of solid wastemanagement facilities within floodplains, wetlands, agricultural land, or areas protected forendangered species. The first-level screening criteria are presented in Table 2.1-1.

2.2 Second-Level Comparative Criteria

The second-level comparative criteria were established to allow for inter-comparison of theparticular strengths and/or limitations of the various sites. The second-level comparativecriteria expanded upon the first-level screening criteria, addressing the first-level criteria ingreater depth (e.g., configuration of a site as well as size) and adding other elements thatcould impact project development activities (e.g., land use, surrounding land use,consistency with local planning efforts, property acquisition, etc.). The comparative criteriaincluded, as a guideline for application, descriptive factors for each criterion for which aparticular site would be considered acceptable or could be considered advantageous orhighly advantageous. The second-level comparative criteria are presented in Table 2.2-1.

During application of the second-level comparative criteria, and particularly duringdiscussions with the representatives of the Borough Presidents Offices, it was requestedthat evaluation of sites include consideration of environmental justice issues. During thecourse of the study, there were some discussion pertaining to environmental justice issues,but it is recommended that future evaluation of the more favorable sites include moredetailed consideration of community concerns.


16/88

4

Table 2.1-1. First-Level Screening Criteria for Site Identification

Criteria Description

Site Size Minimum of six (6) to eight (8) acres of land suitable for development(*)(i.e., excluding floodplains, wetlands, and habitats for endangered

species).

Zoning Site must be located within an area zoned as a Manufacturing District,including M1, M2 and M3 designations.

Floodplains (**) The facility must not be constructed or operated on floodplains unlessprovisions can be made to prevent the encroachment of flood watersupon the facility. The minimum site size of six (6) to eight (8) acres mustbe exclusive of floodplains.

Endangered Species (**) The facility must not be constructed or operated in a manner that causesor contributes to the taking of any endangered or threatened species or tothe destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. Theminimum site size of six (6) to eight (8) acres must be exclusive of areasprotected for endangered species.

Wetlands (**) The facility must not be constructed or operated within the boundary of aregulated wetland. The minimum site size of six (6) to eight (8) acresmust be exclusive of regulated wetlands.

Agricultural Land (**) The site was not, and is not proposed to be, taken through the exercise ofeminent domain; the site does not consist predominantly of agriculturalsoil group 1 or 2 (Land Classification System as certified by the New YorkState Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets); and, the site is not withinan agricultural district formed pursuant to the Agriculture and Markets

Law.

Site Access The site must be readily accessible via major transportation routes, withlimited access through residential areas or areas that contain othersensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals).

Utility Availability Utilities (water, sewer, gas and electricity) are available at the site, butmay need to be upgraded to meet facility needs.

Potential InterconnectionAvailability

A gas main and/or transmission or substation facilities are located withinproximity to the site (no analysis has been performed as to the ability tointerconnect the project with such facilities; a project-specificinterconnection study would need to be performed at the appropriatestage of project development).

(*

)There is some flexibility regarding a smaller site size; however, sites of 4-5 acres in size or less would limittechnology options or require design changes that are not advantageous or would add cost to the project.

(**)Prohibited siting as prescribed by 6 NY ADC 360-1.7(a)(2).


17/88

5

Table 2.2-1. Second-Level Screening Criteria for Comparative Site Evaluation

CriteriaAcceptable

(Meets First LevelCriteria, at a minimum)

AdvantageousHighly

Advantageous

Site Size and

Configuration

6-8 acres of buildable area

(i.e., excluding floodplains,wetlands, habitat forendangered species)without irregular siteconfiguration or severetopography. Minimum sitesize would limit the sizeof facility that can beconstructed to a smallerscale demonstrationfacility for anaerobicdigestion or gasification

technologies, i.e., a facilityless than 500 tons per dayin size

8-15 acres of buildable

area (i.e., excludingfloodplains, wetlands,habitat for endangeredspecies) without irregularsite configuration orsevere topography ;potential to accommodatea larger-scaledemonstration orcommercial facility foranaerobic digestion orgasification technologies

from 500 to 1500 tons perday in size

>15 to 30 acres of

buildable area (i.e.,excluding floodplains,wetlands, habitat forendangered species)without irregular siteconfiguration and severetopography; potential toaccommodate the greatestrange of facility sizes andtechnologies, foranaerobic digestion andgasification technologies

from 1500 to 3000 tonsper day in size

Site Access Accessible by truck viaheavily-traveled, majortransportation routes, withlimited access throughresidential areas or areaspopulated by othersensitive receptors (e.g.,schools, hospitals);potential for minimal traffic

impacts on local roadwaysin proximity to the site

Offers at least one benefitto sites that would beclassified Acceptable;e.g., accessible by truckvia major transportationroutes, with no accessthrough residential areasor areas populated byother sensitive receptors

(e.g., schools, hospitals);access to site along less-traveled route, withreduced potential for trafficimpacts on local roadwaysin proximity to the site; railaccess; barge access;other unique advantage(s)

Offers at least two benefitsto sites that would beclassified "Acceptable";e.g., accessible by truckvia major transportationroutes, with no accessthrough residential areasor areas populated byother sensitive receptors

(e.g., schools, hospitals);access to site along less-traveled route, withreduced potential for trafficimpacts on local roadwaysin proximity to the site; railaccess; barge access;other unique advantage(s)

Land Use (Previousand Current)

Previously developedproperty with unusablestructures still in place;moderate potential for sitecontamination based onprevious and/or currentuse

Previously developedproperty with structuresdemolished or potentiallyusable structures still inplace; low potential for sitecontamination based onprevious and/or currentuse

Undeveloped property, orproperty that is cleared, orhas potentially usablebuildings, and is otherwiseready for redevelopment;potential for sitecontamination not likelybased on previous and/orcurrent use


18/88

Table 2-.2-1 Second-Level Screening Criteria for Comparative Site Evaluation(Continued)

6

CriteriaAcceptable


AdvantageousHighly

Advantageous

Surrounding LandUse

Some presence of non-manufacturing, such ascommercial use, but notsensitive uses surroundingthe property

M1, M2, or M3Manufacturing uses onlysurrounding the property

M2 or M3 onlyManufacturing usessurrounding the property

Consistency withLocal PlanningEfforts (e.g., landuse, transportation,conservation,wetlands,stormwatermanagement)

Site development wouldbe generally consistentwith specified localplanning efforts

Site development wouldbe predominantlyconsistent with specifiedlocal planning efforts

Site development wouldbe fully consistent withspecified local planningefforts

Zoning Must be zoned M1, M2, orM3 Site is zoned M2 or M3. Site is zoned M3.

Nuisance Issues(e.g., noise, odor,visual impact)

No or limited existingbuffer on site or littlepotential to build on-sitebuffer to reduce potentialimpacts and visibility ofsite development off site.

Moderate existing on sitebuffer or potential toconstruct such a buffer onsite to reduce potentialimpacts and visibility ofsite development from offsite.

Significant existing on sitebuffer and/or potential forconstruction of buffer onsite which could minimizepotential impacts andvisibility off site.

Utility Availability Utilities (water, sewer, gas,electricity) may be

available at the site, butwould likely need to beupgraded to meet facilityneeds

Required utilities may beavailable at the site

without the need forupgrading

Not Applicable

PotentialInterconnectionAvailability

A gas main andtransmission or substationfacilities are located withinproximity to the site (noanalysis has beenperformed as to the abilityto interconnect with such

facilities; a project-specificinterconnection studywould need to beperformed at theappropriate stage ofproject development).

A gas main andtransmission or substationfacilities are located at oradjacent to the site (noanalysis has beenperformed as to the abilityto interconnect with such

facilities; a project-specificinterconnection studywould need to beperformed at theappropriate stage ofproject development).

Not Applicable


19/88

Table 2-.2-1 Second-Level Screening Criteria for Comparative Site Evaluation(Continued)

7

CriteriaAcceptable


AdvantageousHighly

Advantageous

PropertyAcquisition

Site is available at a highcost and/or with restrictiveconditions or otherimpediments; restrictionsand/or impediments couldpreclude or potentiallydelay site use

Site is available for sale orlease, with no knownrestrictions or impedimentsthat would preclude orpotentially delayacquisition of the site forproject development

Site is owned by the Cityor by an interested third-party, facilitating use oracquisition of site forproject development

Project Economics Offers the least beneficialproject economics (i.e.,costs exceed those forcurrent wastetransportation anddisposal contracts) basedon a life cycle economic

analysis consideringfacility size specific to thesite footprint andgeometry, capital andoperating costs, andproduct revenues

Offers comparableproject economics (i.e.,costs are equivalent tothose for current wastetransportation anddisposal contracts) basedon a life cycle economic

analysis consideringfacility size specific to thesite footprint andgeometry, capital andoperating costs, andproduct revenues

Offers beneficial projecteconomics (i.e., costs areless than those for currentwaste transportation anddisposal contracts) basedon a life cycle economicanalysis considering

facility size specific to thesite footprint andgeometry, capital andoperating costs, andproduct revenues

PotentialEnvironmentalBenefits

Potential environmentalbenefits are comparableoverall to those withcurrent wastetransportation and

disposal practices.Benefits to be consideredqualitatively are materialsand energy recovery,transportation impacts,use of fossil fuels,greenhouse gas emissions

Potential environmentalbenefits are greater overallthan those with currentwaste transportation anddisposal practices

Potential environmentalbenefits are substantiallygreater overall than thosewith current wastetransportation and

disposal practices


20/88

8

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL SITES

3.1 Overview of Methodology

A five step process was used to identify potential sites for further evaluation. First, the CitysPLUTO database was used to identify tax lots that met key, first-level screening criteria,specifically site size (i.e. 6-8 acres) and zoning (i.e. manufacturing). Second, an assessmentwas performed of whether compatible facilities (e.g. closed landfills, power plants,wastewater treatment facilities, and waste management operations facilities) existed withinclose proximity in order to utilize the potential sites energy products. Third, sites werenarrowed to those that the City could acquire with relative ease. This included potential sitesthat were publicly owned and were considered either inactive or had an existing use thatcould relocate to another location. Also considered were private sites listed as vacantproperty in the PLUTO database.

19 potential sites initially were identified from these first three steps, which are listed inTable 3.2-1. The City and ARI then consulted with the Task Force (e.g. City Councils SolidWaste Management Committee, Department of Sanitation, Department of Parks andRecreation, Department of Citywide Administrative Services, Borough Presidents Offices)to determine if these initial potential sites posed any substantial issues or red flags towarrant removal. Task Force representatives were also asked to supply additional locationsthey felt were missing from the initial list and should be evaluated within the study. Lastly,the first-level screening criteria were applied to the 19 potential sites. This analysis reducedthe site list to nine locations. The City and ARI recommended these nine sites forcomparative evaluation using the second-level screening criteria.

3.2 Initial Site Identification

The 19 initial potential sites that were found based on the methodology described above arelisted below in Table 3.2.-1.

Table 3.2-1. Potential Sites Identified for First-Level Screening (a)

Borough Site

Brooklyn Brooklyn Union Gas Company (Varick Ave. and Lombardy St.)

Penn & Fountain Landfills/Flatlands Ave WWTP (Van Siclen Ave

and Seaview Ave.) Newtown Creek Marine Transfer Station (1Kingsland Ave.)

Bronx Hunts Point Waste Water Treatment Plant (1240 Viele Ave. andsouth of Ryawa Ave.)

Hunts Point Food Distribution Center and Marine TransferStation (Food Center Drive and Farragut St.)


21/88

9

Hell Gate (132nd St. and Robert F. Kennedy Bridge)

Ferry Point Park (Hutchinson River Parkway)

Manhattan Randalls Island (FDNY Property)

Queens Phelps Dodge Refinery (57th Ave. along Newtown Creek)

Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave. near Rikers Island Bridge)

Bowery Bay Astoria Energy Power Plant (Steinway St. andBerrian Blvd.)

Con Ed Astoria Complex (near 31st St. and 20th Ave.)

Ares Group (31-22 College Point Blvd.)

Flushing Airport (near 20th Ave and Whitestone Expressway)

Edgemere (Beach Channel Drive and Beach 80th Street)

Edgemere Landfill (End of Amstel Blvd.)Staten Island Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility(north of channel)

Rossville Site (Arthur Kill Rd. and Bloomingdale Rd)

Caracci Property (Arthur Kill Rd. and Chemical Lane)

a. Boroughs are listed alphabetically; sites within each borough are listed in no particular order.

3.3 Application of First-Level Screening Criteria

The list of potential sites was narrowed by applying the first-level screening criteria.NYCityMap, an online mapping portal, was used to confirm property boundaries, acreageand zoning. The Citys GIS Hydrology Mapping, Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) NationalWetlands Inventory were used to determine if and how much of the site was within adesignated wetland or floodplain. USFWS was also consulted regarding federally-listedendangered species at potential sites. Google Earth and street maps were used to make aninitial determination about site accessibility via major transportation routes and to assess ifpotential sites were located in close proximity to residential areas and other facilities withpotential sensitive receptors, such as schools and hospitals.

Information regarding utilities and interconnection availability was requested from theDepartment of Environmental Protection, Con Ed and National Grid; however, completeinformation about each site was not available during the study period. Given theEvaluations limitations in acquiring this data, additional investigation of the availability andquality of utilities, as well as the project-specific potential for interconnections to a gas mainand the power grid, as applicable, would need to be conducted at the appropriate stage ofproject development in order to definitively determine each sites potential.


22/88

10

After the application of the first-level screening criteria, 10 of the 19 sites were eliminatedfrom the potential list. This was due primarily to the existence of wetlands or floodplains thatreduced the available acreage for developing the site to below the minimum sizerequirements. Sites removed from further consideration due to the presence of floodplainsand wetlands included:

Table 3.3-1. Removed Sites due to Existing Wetlands and Floodplains(a)

Borough Site

Brooklyn Newtown Creek Marine Transfer Station (1Kingsland Ave.)

Bronx Hunts Point Waste Water Treatment Plant (1240 Viele Ave. andsouth of Ryawa Ave.)

Hunts Point Food Distribution Center and Marine TransferStation (Food Center Drive and Farragut St.)

Hell Gate (132nd St. and Robert F. Kennedy Bridge)

Queens Bowery Bay Astoria Energy Power Plant (Steinway St. andBerrian Blvd.)

Ares Group (31-22 College Point Blvd.)

Flushing Airport (near 20th Ave and Whitestone Expressway)

Edgemere (Beach Channel Drive and Beach 80th Street)

Edgemere Landfill (End of Amstel Blvd.)


Additionally, Ferry Point Park in the Bronx was removed because it was not zoned formanufacturing.

3.4 Potential Sites for Comparative Evaluation

The remaining nine sites were selected to undergo comparative evaluation using thesecond-level screening criteria. As described in Section 2.0, the second-level screeningcriteria provide additional detail for appraising first-level screening criteria while also addingadditional factors for consideration (e.g. nuisance issues, property acquisition). Furthermore,the second-level screening criteria adopted descriptive factors that measured varyingdegrees of acceptability whereby sites could be evaluated as more or less advantageousagainst one another. Section 4.0 provides a more thorough overview of the comparativeevaluation process and presents the findings for each of the nine potential sites.


23/88

11

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF SITES

3.5 Overview of Comparative Evaluation Process

As described in Section 3.0, nine sites were identified for comparative evaluation. For

reference, these sites are listed in Table 4.1-1.

Table 4.1-1. Sites Identified for Comparative Evaluation(a)

Borough(b) Site

Brooklyn Brooklyn Union Gas Company (Varick Ave. and Lombardy St.)

Penn & Fountain Landfills/Flatlands Ave WWTP (Van Siclen Aveand Seaview Ave.)

Manhattan Randalls Island (FDNY Property)

Queens Phelps Dodge Refinery (57th

Ave. along Newtown Creek) Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave. near Rikers Island Bridge)

Con Ed Astoria Complex (near 31st St. and 20th Ave.)

Staten Island Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility(north of channel)

Rossville Site (Arthur Kill Rd.)

Caracci Property (Arthur Kill Rd. and Chemical Lane)


b. As described in Section 3.0, four sites were initially identified in the Bronx, but none of those sites

were determined to be suitable based on application of the First-Level Screening Criteria.

Available information was gathered for each of the potential sites from public sources. Thisinformation was supplemented with visual observations from site visits that were conductedin June 2010. In most cases, the sites were viewed from public ways along the periphery ofthe property, since approval to access and enter the properties was not available from thesite owners at the time of the visits. The only exception was the Fresh Kills Rock CrushingFacility site on Staten Island; DSNY accompanied ARI and other City representatives on awalkover of that site.

Planning-level, life cycle economic analyses were prepared to comparatively assess projecteconomics. Analyses were completed for three project sizes each for anaerobic digestionand thermal processing, with the project sizes corresponding to the acreage available fordevelopment. The "acceptable" site sizes (6-8 acres) were assumed to be suitable for up toa 300 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility or up to a 700 ton per day thermal processingfacility. The "advantageous" site sizes (up to 15 acres) were assumed to be suitable for upto a 600 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility or up to a 1,100 ton per day thermalprocessing facility. The "highly advantageous" site sizes (greater than 15 acres up to30 acres) were assumed to be suitable for up to a 900 ton per day anaerobic digestion


24/88

12

facility or up to a 1,800 ton per day thermal processing facility. Inputs to the model includedcapital and operating costs and projected revenue for sale of electricity and other products(e.g., recyclables, compost, vitrified aggregate, commodity products). Model inputs werebased on the information in the Phase 2 report, updated by ARI using recent informationassociated with study and procurement activities for similar projects. An allowance was

made for site acquisition costs and general site development costs, but such costs arerepresentative only and not site-specific. Certain sensitivities were considered, includingcapital cost premiums for construction in New York City, sale price for electricity, and theimpact of disposing of compost from anaerobic digestion if that material cannot be sold forbeneficial use. A projected tipping fee was calculated for the year 2015, which waspresumed to be the first year of operation of a conversion technology demonstration project.

The results of the life cycle economic analyses and sensitivities showed a projected tippingfee for anaerobic digestion ranging from $70 to $90 per ton, with little variability for projectsize. The projected tipping fees for thermal processing varied by size, with larger projectsdemonstrating an economy of scale: $140-$150 per ton for a 700 ton per day thermal

processing facility; $120-$130 per ton for a 1,100 ton per day thermal processing facility;and $100-$110 per ton for an 1,800 ton per day thermal processing facility. As part of theSiting Study comparative analysis, these projected tipping fees were compared to thefuture, projected cost for continued export and disposal. For purpose of the Phase 2 report,the City estimated a 2009 cost for export and disposal of $107 per ton. Escalating thisvalue at 3% per year to the year 2015, an estimated tipping fee of $128 per ton for exportand disposal was calculated.

Based on visual observations from the site visits along with readily-available publicinformation gathered for the sites and the planning-level economic analyses describedabove, the comparative evaluation criteria were applied to each of the nine (9) potentialsites identified for comparative evaluation. The type and source of information generallygathered for each of the individual comparative criteria are summarized in Table 4.1-2. Theevaluations for each of the nine sites are provided in Sections 4.2 through 4.10, in the orderin which the sites are listed in Table 4.1-1. A summary of the findings, including inter-comparison of the sites, is provided in Section 5.0.


25/88

13

Table 4.1-2. Type and Source of Information for Application ofComparative Evaluation Criteria

Criteria Type and Source of Information

Site Size and

Configuration(includingconsideration of thepresence ofwetlands,floodplains, andendangered speciesthat could impactusable site area)

NYCEDC PLUTO database of properties for site acreage

NYCityMap (online mapping portal) for property boundaries andconfirmation of acreage

City GIS hydrology mapping (including floodplain, wetland,waterways, and other inland hydrology features)

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FloodInsurance Rate Maps (FIRM); see Appendix A for FEMA FIRMmaps for the nine (9) sites comparatively evaluated

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National WetlandsInventory (on-line digital mapping); see Appendix B for the

USFWS Wetlands maps for the nine (9) sites evaluated

USFWS expedited process to obtain listing of federally-listedendangered species (user-generated electronic letter at USFWSwebsite); supplemental telephone call with USFWS Long IslandField Office to verify user-generated information; see Appendix Cfor endangered species documentation

Google Earth aerial satellite photos and visual observations fromsite visits

Site Access Google Maps and visual observations from site visits

Land Use (Previousand Current)

Information provided by Task Force members, representatives ofthe Borough Presidents Offices, and other City sources

Visual observations from site visits

Surrounding LandUse


Visual observations from site visits

Zoning information for surrounding properties (NYCEDC PLUTOdatabase, NYCityMap online mapping portal)

Consistency withLocal PlanningEfforts (e.g., landuse, transportation,conservation,wetlands,stormwatermanagement)



26/88

Table 4.1-2. Type and Source of Information for Application ofComparative Evaluation Criteria (Continued)

14

Criteria Type and Source of Information

Zoning NYCEDC PLUTO database of properties and NYCityMap (onlinemapping portal)

Nuisance Issues

(e.g., noise, odor,visual impact)

Visual observations during site visits

Utility Availability(a) Visual observations during site visits

City DEP GIS mapping

PotentialInterconnection(a)Availability

Visual observations during site visits

City DEP GIS mapping

Property Acquisition NYCEDC PLUTO database of properties and NYCityMap (onlinemapping portal) for information on site ownership


Site owners were not contacted as part of this siting study toinquire about property acquisition

Project Economics Planning-level, life cycle economic analysis considering facilitysize specific to the site footprint, expected capital and operatingcosts, estimated product revenue


Qualitative assessment considering facility size specific to the sitefootprint

(a). Data regarding the availability of utilities and interconnection capability was requested from theDepartment of Environmental Protection, Con Ed and National Grid; however, requested data was notavailable at the time of the Evaluation. Additional investigation of the availability and quality of utilities, as wellas the project-specific potential for gas and electric interconnections, as applicable, would need to beconducted at the appropriate stage of project development in order to definitively determine each sitespotential.


27/88

15

3.6 Brooklyn Brooklyn Union Gas Company (Varick Ave. and Lombardy St.)

The site consists of two rectangular areas on the National Grids property of the formerBrooklyn Union Gas Company in Brooklyn. The south plot, with an estimated area of 6 to 7acres, is located north and east of the intersection of Maspeth Avenue and Vandervoort

Avenue. The north plot, with an estimated area of 7 acres, is located south and east of theintersection of Lombardy Street and Porter Avenue. Varick Avenue runs along the east sideof both areas, but appears to traverse the site and does not appear to be a publicly-accessible roadway in this location. The total area of the two plots is approximately 14acres, and is zoned M3-1. Access to the site is from Route 278, and then along local roadsfor less than one mile. There are some commercial and residential areas along the localaccess roadways. Table 4.2-1 provides key site information. Figure 4.2-1 provides a sitelocation map. Figure 4.2-2 provides an aerial satellite photo of the site.

The topography of the Brooklyn Union Gas Company site is relatively flat. The site does notcontain floodplains, wetlands, or federally-listed endangered species (see Appendices A, B

and C). The site exhibits visual evidence of past development, with growth of vegetationassociated with an unused site. The larger property (i.e., beyond the portion considered asthe site) is partially occupied by buildings. Portions of the larger property were observed tobe actively in use as a National Grid Meter Operations Facility. In addition, the largerproperty contains gas infrastructure that requires a buffer zone for safety and securityreasons. National Grid has at this time no plans to develop, sell, or lease the land based oninformal staff conversations.

The area surrounding the site is made up of both industrial and residential areas. There is aresidential area adjacent to the north plot (across Porter Avenue). There is a residentialarea within one block of the south plot. There is a playground at the intersection ofVandervoort Street and Meeker Avenue, within two blocks of the site.

Table 4.2-1. Brooklyn Union Gas Company Key Site Information

Owner Block.Lot Zoning AcresEstimated

Usable AcresNational Grid 2837.1 M3-1 14 14


28/88

16

Figure 4.2-1. Site Location Map Brooklyn Union Gas Company


29/88

17

The Brooklyn Union Gas Company site was evaluated via application of the second-levelscreening criteria listed and described in Section 2.2. A summary of the findings ispresented in Table 4.2-2. The more detailed evaluation results follow, in table 4.2-3.

Table 4.2-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the

Brooklyn Union Gas Company Site

Criteria Acceptable AdvantageousHighly

Advantageous

Site Size and Configuration X

Site Access X

Land Use (Previous andCurrent)

X

Surrounding Land Use X

Consistency with LocalPlanning Efforts

X

Zoning X

Nuisance Issues X

Utility Availability X

Potential InterconnectionAvailability X

Property Acquisition X

Project Economics X

Potential EnvironmentalBenefits

X


30/88

18

Table 4.2-3. Comparative Evaluation of Brooklyn Union Gas Company

Criteria Site Specific Information Determination

Site Size andConfiguration

The site consists of two, adjacent,rectangular plots of land on the

Brooklyn Union Gas Company site witha combined area of approximately 14acres. The topography of the site isflat. The site does not containfloodplains, wetlands, or federally listedendangered species. As a result, theestimated usable area is approximately14 acres.

Advantageous8-15 acres of buildable area (i.e.,

excluding floodplains, wetlands, habitatfor endangered species) withoutirregular site configuration or severetopography.

Site Access From the nearest highway (Rte 278),access to the site is as follows:

Route 278 East to Exit 33

Turn Left at Humboldt Street.Turn Right at Meeker Avenue.Continue onto Cherry Street.Turn Right onto Varick Avenue.

The distance traveled on local roads isless than one mile. There are somecommercial and residential areasbetween Route 278 and the site.

AcceptableAccessible by truck via heavily-traveled, major transportation routes,with limited access through residential

areas or areas populated by othersensitive receptors (e.g., schools,hospitals); potential for minimal trafficimpacts on local roadways in proximityto the site.

Land Use(Previous andCurrent)

The site is currently vacant land. Otherportions of the overall property areoccupied by National Grid Meter

Operations Facility. Based upon thepast use of the site as a gas company,there is the potential for sitecontamination.

AdvantageousPreviously developed property with noexisting structures. Site is not known to

have contamination, but potentialexists based on previous site use,requiring extensive investigation andpotential remediation.

SurroundingLand Use

The surrounding area is a mixture ofindustrial and residential buildings.There is a playground located atVandevoort Ave. and Meeker Ave,which is within two blocks of the site.There are several baseball fieldsadjacent to the site on Maspeth Ave.and Vandevoort Ave. The area

surrounding the site is zoned M3-1 andM1-1. Within one block of the site,there is a residential area zoned R6.

AcceptableSome presence of non-manufacturing,such as commercial use; some limitedsensitive uses surrounding theproperty.

Consistency withLocal PlanningEfforts

There are no known inconsistencieswith local planning efforts.

AcceptableSite development would be generallyconsistent with specified local planningefforts

Zoning The site is zoned M3-1. Highly AdvantageousSite is zoned M3.


31/88

Table 4.2-3. Comparative Evaluation of Brooklyn Union Gas Company (Continued)

19


Nuisance Issues(e.g., noise,odor, visualimpact)

The site size is sufficient so that thefacilities could be constructed awayfrom the local streets. It is possiblethat an on-site buffer could be

constructed.

AdvantageousPotential to construct a moderatebuffer on site to reduce potentialimpacts and visibility of site

development from off site.Utility Availability Based upon the site location, utilities

are most likely available at the site.AcceptableRequired utilities (water, sewer, gas,electricity) may be available at the site,but would likely need to be upgraded tomeet facility needs


Based upon site location and previoususe, the availability of gas transmissionlines is likely at or in the vicinity of thesite; nearest substation and/or highvoltage power transmission lines not

determined.

AcceptableA gas main and transmission orsubstation facilities are likely locatedwithin proximity to or possibly at thesite (no analysis has been performed

as to the ability to interconnect withsuch facilities; a project-specificinterconnection study would need tobe performed at the appropriate stageof project development).

PropertyAcquisition

The site is currently owned by NationalGrid.

AcceptableSite is privately owned. The owner hasno existing plans to sell, lease, ordevelop the site given its current useas a buffer to the neighboringcommunity. Further conversations withNational Grid needed to determine the

sites potential availability.

ProjectEconomics

The usable size of the site(approximately 14 acres) could supportdevelopment of up to a 600 ton per dayanaerobic digestion facility at anestimated tipping fee of approximately$70-$90 per ton or up to an 1,100 tonper day thermal processing facility atan estimated tipping fee ofapproximately $120-$130 per ton(2015 values).

AdvantageousSite size supports development of alarger-scale facility (up to 600-tpd foranaerobic digestion or up to 1,100-tpdfor thermal processing), with estimatedtipping fees (2015) less than orcomparable to projected costs of $128per ton for export and disposal.


32/88

Table 4.2-3. Comparative Evaluation of Brooklyn Union Gas Company (Continued)

20



The usable size of the site(approximately 14 acres) could supportdevelopment of up to a 600 ton per dayanaerobic digestion facility or up to an

1,100 ton per day thermal processingfacility.

AdvantageousConsidering potential project sizesupported by the site, potentialenvironmental benefits are expected to

be greater than current wastetransportation and disposal practices(e.g., reduced long-haul truck, rail orbarge traffic; reduced greenhouse gasemissions; increased materialsrecovery, renewable energygeneration, reduced landfilling)..


33/88

21

4.3 Brooklyn Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands Ave Wastewater TreatmentPlant (Van Siclen Ave. and Seaview Ave.)

The site consists of a fenced, rectangular area located on the southern part of the FlatlandsAvenue Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) property in Brooklyn. The property is owned

by the NYCDEP. The site is located north and east of the intersection of Seaview Avenueand Van Siclen Avenue. Access to the site is primarily over local roads, and includes travelthrough residential and other mixed-use/commercial areas. The nearest highway is theShore/Belt Parkway, with entrance/exit ramps to Pennsylvania Avenue. The site has anestimated area of 10 acres, and is zoned M3-1. Table 4.3-1 provides key site information.Figure 4.3-1 provides a site location map. Figure 4.3-2 provides an aerial satellite photo ofthe site.

The topography of the site is relatively flat. The site appears to be previously undeveloped,with no structures present on the site. Mapping indicates there is little or no floodplain areaon the site, and no federally-listed endangered species (see Appendices A and C,

respectively). During the site visit, a heavy growth of reeds was observed to cover most ofthe site. Wetlands mapping available at the time of the site visit indicated a small area ofemergent wetlands in the southern part of the site. A subsequent review of updated, digitalwetlands mapping obtained after the site visit indicated that approximately 75 percent of thesite area is a wetland area (see Appendix B). Due to the extensive presence of wetlands,the usable area of the site is estimated to be approximately 2.5 acres, which is less than therecommended 6-8 acres specified for first-level screening and less than the 6-8 acresspecified for an acceptable rating for second-level comparative evaluation.

West of the site is the Starrett City residential housing development (Spring Creek Towers).East of the site is Hendrix Creek. Further to the east, beyond Hendrix Creek, is theGateway shopping center. Immediately adjacent to the southern portion of the site is asmall area of community gardens. South of the site is Shore Parkway. South of the ShoreParkway is the Gateway National Recreation Area, a National Park site.

Table 4.3-1. Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands Ave WWTP Key Site Information


Usable AcresNYC DEP 4452.150 M3-1 10 (estimated)


34/88

22

Figure 4.3-1. Site Location Map Penn & Fountain Landfills/Flatlands Ave WWTP

Figure 4.3-2. Aerial Satellite Photo Penn & Fountain Landfills/Flatlands Ave WWTP


35/88

23

The Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands Avenue WWTP site was evaluated via applicationof the second-level screening criteria listed and described in Section 2.2. A summary of thefindings is presented in Table 4.3-2. The more detailed evaluation results follow, in Table4.3-3.

Table 4.3-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for thePenn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands Avenue WWTP

Criteria Acceptable AdvantageousHighly

Advantageous

Site Size and Configuration

Does not meetthe AcceptableCriterion due tothe presence of

wetlands

Site Access X


X



X

Zoning X

Nuisance Issues X

Utility Availability X(a)

Potential InterconnectionAvailability

X(a)

Property Acquisition X

Project Economics X

Potential Environmental

BenefitsX

a. Limited information for utilities and interconnection availability was available to complete the evaluationfor this criterion. Verification is required.


36/88

24

Table 4.3-3. Comparative Evaluation of Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands AvenueWastewater Treatment Plant


Site Size and

Configuration

The site is the rectangular, southern

portion of the lot that contains theFlatlands Ave WWTP. The total area isestimated to be 10 acres. Thetopography of the site is flat. The sitecontains little or no floodplains, and nofederally listed endangered species.The site contains wetlands. It isestimated that 75% of the site is withinwetlands area. Due to the presence ofwetlands, the estimated usable area isless than 3 acres.

Does Not Meet Acceptable Criterion

The usable area of the site is estimatedto be less than 3 acres, and therefore,does not meet the acceptablecriterion of 6-8 usable acres.

Site Access From the Brooklyn Bridge, access tothe site is over local roads as follows:

After crossing Brooklyn Bridge:Continue on Adams Street.Continue on Boerum Place.Left at Atlantic Avenue.Right at Pennsylvania Avenue.Left at Seaview Avenue

The distance traveled on local roads isapproximately nine miles. The nearest

highway is the Shore/Belt Pkwy, withexit/entrance ramps to PennsylvaniaAvenue.

AcceptableAccessible by truck via heavily-traveled, major transportation routes,with limited access through residentialareas or areas populated by othersensitive receptors (e.g., schools,hospitals); potential for minimal trafficimpacts on local roadways in proximityto the site.


The site is currently vacant land, anddoes not appear to have beenpreviously developed. The northernportion of the property, adjacent to thesite, is occupied by the FlatlandsAvenue Wastewater Treatment Plant.Review of historical aerial photosindicates that this site was formerly awetland area and has been filled.

Highly AdvantageousPreviously undeveloped property;potential for site contamination notlikely.

SurroundingLand Use

The site is bounded to the north by theFlatlands Avenue WWTP; to the eastby Hendrix Creek (with the GatewayShopping Center beyond the creek); tothe south by Shore Parkway (with theGateway National Recreation Areabeyond the parkway); and to the westby Van Siclen Avenue with the StarrettCity residential housing development

AcceptableCo-location benefits with the WWTP.However, some presence of non-manufacturing, such as commercialuse, and some sensitive uses(including residential) near to theproperty.


37/88

Table 4.3-3. Comparative Evaluation of Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands AvenueWastewater Treatment Plant (Continued)

25


on the opposite site of Van Siclen Ave.There is a rehabilitation center locatedon Van Siclen Avenue northwest of thesite. The Gateway Shopping Centerlocated east of the site (beyond thecreek) is zoned C4-2. The residentialhousing development located west ofthe site is zoned R5. The areasoutheast of the site is zoned as Park.

Consistency withLocal PlanningEfforts

There are no known inconsistencieswith local planning efforts.

AcceptableSite development would be generallyconsistent with specified local planningefforts

Zoning The site is zoned M3-1. Highly AdvantageousSite is zoned M3.

Nuisance Issues(e.g., noise,odor, visualimpact)

The site is rectangular in shape and,inclusive of the wetlands area, is ofsufficient size for the potential toconstruct a moderate buffer.

AdvantageousPotential to construct a moderatebuffer on site to reduce potentialimpacts and visibility of sitedevelopment from off site.

Utility Availability Based upon the site location, utilitiesare expected to be available at the site,but require verification.

AcceptableRequired utilities (water, sewer, gas,electricity) may be available at the site,but would likely need to be upgraded tomeet facility needs


The nearest utility interconnectionswere not determined. Utilities mappingwas requested from the City DEP GISdepartment, but was not madeavailable during the time period of thestudy. Based upon the site location,interconnections could potentially beavailable within proximity to the site.

AcceptableA gas main and transmission orsubstation facilities may be locatedwithin proximity to the site, but requiresverification (no analysis has beenperformed as to the ability tointerconnect with such facilities; aproject-specific interconnection studywould need to be performed at theappropriate stage of projectdevelopment).

PropertyAcquisition

The site is owned by NYC Departmentof Environmental Protection.

Highly AdvantageousThe site is owned by the City (NYCDEP), potentially facilitating use of thesite for project development.

ProjectEconomics

The usable size of the site (less than3 acres) could support development ofonly a small demonstration facility (lessthan 300 tons per day). Projecteconomics have not been establishedfor this small size range, but would bethe least beneficial and potentially noteconomically viable.

AcceptableSite size supports development of onlya small demonstration facility thatwould offer the least beneficial projecteconomics; viability of projecteconomics requires determination.


38/88

Table 4.3-3. Comparative Evaluation of Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands AvenueWastewater Treatment Plant (Continued)

26



The usable size of the site (less than3 acres) could support development ofonly a small demonstration facility (lessthan 300 tons per day).

AcceptableConsidering potential project sizesupported by the site (less than300 tons per day, offers the leastamount of potential environmentalbenefits compared to current wastetransportation and disposal practices(e.g., limited benefits such as reducedlong-haul truck, rail or barge traffic;reduced greenhouse gas emissions;increased materials recovery,renewable energy generation, reducedlandfilling).


39/88

27

4.4 Manhattan Randalls Island (FDNY Property)

The site is located on Randalls Island in Manhattan. It is owned by the New York City FireDepartment (FDNY), and is currently occupied by the FDNY training facility. There arebuildings on the site used for training purposes. The site consists of 23 acres, and is zoned

M3-1. Access to the site is from Route 278, and then along local roads for less than onemile. There are ball fields on Randall's Island along the route to the site. Table 4.4-1provides key site information. Figures 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 provide a site location map for thegreater area and a site location map specific to Randalls Island, respectively. Figure 4.4-3provides an aerial satellite photo of the site.

Review of aerial photographs and other mapping indicates that the site is flat and almostentirely paved. The site contains some floodplain areas, along the east side of the siteadjacent to the East River (see Appendix A). Mapping and other supporting informationindicates no wetlands or federally-listed endangered species on the site (see Appendices Band C). Considering the presence of a limited area of floodplain, the estimated usable area

of the site is at least 20 acres.

The site is bounded to the north by Randalls Island Park (which is zoned as Park).Randalls Island Park includes numerous baseball and other playing fields. The site isbounded to the south by the Randall's Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. During a sitevisit on June 16, 2010, the traffic on the service road leading to the site was moderate.School buses (assumed to be transporting school children to the ball fields), fire trucks(accessing the FDNY training facility), and construction vehicles (working on the wastewatertreatment plant) were observed.

A subsequent site visit in October 2011 showed that the whole site was actively used by theFDNY, and that it would be very difficult to relocate given its own unique site requirements.Because these significant impediments would preclude the use for a demonstration facility,the site does not meet the acceptable criterion for Site Acquisition.

Table 4.4-1. Randalls Island (FDNY Property) Key Site Information


Usable AcresFDNY 1819.40 M3-1 23 20+


40/88

28

Figure 4.4-1. Site Location Map Randalls Island and Greater Vicinity

Figure 4.4-2. Site Location Map Randalls Island and Site


41/88

29

Figure 4.4-3. Aerial Satellite Photo Randalls Island (FDNY Property)


42/88

30

The Randalls Island (FDNY Property) site was evaluated via application of the second-levelscreening criteria listed and described in Section 2.2. A summary of the findings ispresented in Table 4.4-2. The more detailed evaluation results follow, in Table 4.4-3.

Table 4.4-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for

Randalls Island (FDNY Property)Criteria Acceptable Advantageous

HighlyAdvantageous

Site Size and Configuration X

Site Access X


X



X

Zoning X

Nuisance Issues X

Utility Availability X

Potential Interconnection

Availability

X

Property Acquisition

Does not meetthe AcceptableCriterion due tocurrent activeas a training

facility

Project Economics X

Potential EnvironmentalBenefits

X


43/88

31

Table 4.4-3. Comparative Evaluation of Randalls Island (FDNY Property)


Site Size andConfiguration

The site is the FDNY parcel onRandall's Island, and consists of

23 acres. The site configuration isroughly rectangular. The topographyof the site is flat. The site does notcontain wetlands or federally listedendangered species. The site doescontain floodplains adjacent to the EastRiver. Considering this floodplain zone,the estimated usable area of the site is20 or more acres.

Highly Advantageous>15 to 30 acres of buildable area (i.e.,

excluding floodplains, wetlands, habitatfor endangered species) withoutirregular site configuration and severetopography.

Site Access From the nearest highway (Rte 278),access to the site is as follows:

Route 278 East to RFK Bridge.Exit at the ramp labeled Randall's Is,Icahn Stadium, Wards Is.Right at Triborough Bridge/ TriboroughPlaza access road.Left at Randall's Island Road.

The distance travelled on local roads(all on Randall's Island) is less thanone mile.

There are ball fields located on

Randall's Island along the route to thesite.

AcceptableAccessible by truck via heavily-traveled, major transportation routes,

with limited access past sensitivereceptors (ball fields on RandallsIsland); potential for minimal trafficimpacts on local roadways in proximityto the site.


The site is currently occupied by theFDNY New York City Fire Academy.There are 14 buildings on the site.Most of the site is paved.The previous land use is unknown.

AdvantageousPreviously developed property withpotentially usable structures and/orinfrastructure; low potential for sitecontamination based on current use;co-location benefits with WWTP.

SurroundingLand Use

The site is bounded to the north byRandall's Island Park (zoned Park).The site is bo

Documents

New York City Study of Potential WTE sites