ML19226A150

First Set of Interrogatories for Util from Ny St Dept of Environ Conservation

ML19226A150
Person / Time
Site:	New Haven
Issue date:	04/04/1979
From:	NEW YORK, STATE OF
To:
Shared Package
ML19224A664	List: ML19224A658 ML19226A150
References
NUDOCS 7905150271
Download: ML19226A150 (8)

Text

.

NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERAT~0N SITING AND THE EN'/IRONMENT In the Matter of the Application of New York )

State Electric & Gas Corp. and Long Island )

Lighting Co., pursuant to Article VIII of the )

Public Service Law, for a Certificate of )

Environmental Compatibility and Public Need ) Case No. 80008 authorizing the construction and operation )

of a steam electric generating facility at a )

site in the Town of New Haven, County of )

Oswego, or at an alternate site in the )

Town of Stuyvesant, County of Columbia, N.Y. )

Interrogatories of the Staff of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation AIR QUALITY AND METEOROLOGY

1. (p. 6.1-15, Part III) The definition of the parameter A in the equation for the growth of the TIBL is incorrect.

A is dimensional (m ) and is given by the formula.

A = [2R/(pCp u 40/oz]%

Indicate whether or not the correct formula was used in the analysis. If the incorrect formula was used, provide corrected estimates for fumigation conditions.

2. (p. 6.1-20, Part III) Expand on the methodology for the determination of air quality receptors , showing that the receptors chosen are at the locations of highest expected impact.

3. (p. 6.1-19, Part III) Provide a listing of the emissions inventory used.

4. (p. 6.1-20, Part III) Are the PSD estimated impacts the highest 2nd highest impacts exclusive of background?

418 326

? 0 0 515 0 2 ~()

5. Indicate the exact location where the diesel emissions are planned to occur.

6. Discuss the construction of a taller auxiliary boiler stack versus possible fuel savings resulting from the use of a liigher sulfur fuel oil.

7. (Table 5.6-23, Part III) The highest-2nd highest 24-hour 3 at PSD SO2 incremenu use is projected to be 75.3 ug/m NM Station 6. Sho. for this 24-hour period that this is the location of highest 24-hour impact. If not, what is the location? What is the proposed facilit.'.es contribu-tion to this value?

8. (p. 6.1-18, Part III) Expand on the 12 mph minimum wind speed criteria for evaluation of lake breeze fumigation.

9. What 60/6 z was assumed in the stable layer during lake breeze fumigation estimates? What value(s) of R was assumed?

10. (p . 5. 6-5, Part I~.I) Provide the expected highest-2nd highest estimated SO2 PSD impact to be associated with the auxiliary boiler operation.

418 327

AQUATIC SCOLCCY

1. Table 2.1-281 indicates that lake herring were collected in either Catfish or Butterfly Creeks. Tr.bles 2.1-282-2.2-285 show that no lake herring were collected with either the boat electroshocker or the back pack electroshocker, the only gears used in the streams. Please give the number of lake herring captured, size of fish and date of capture in the stream collections.

2. Section 2.2.2.1.6.8 p 2.2-163 Please give reference verifying statement that no historic spawning areas of lake trcut occur in the vicinity of Mexico Bay.

3 316(b) De=3nstration. New Haven, Section 7.0. Please explain biological .aationale for excluding site specj fic feeding information on Critical Aquatic Organisms (CAO) alewife, rainbow smeit, gizzard shad, emerald shiner, spottail shiner, trout-perch, threespine-stickleback and tessellated darter.

Please supply this information for each of these species specific to Lake Ontario.

4. 316(b) Eemonstration. New Haven, Section 7.0, Only 3 larval gizzard shad were collected in the ichthyoplankton studies of lo77 (316(b) p. 7.2-5). However juvenile and adult gizzard shad were numerous (852) in the study area (316(b) p.7.2-5).

Please describe and supply references used in the identifica-tion of this species and specify the characteristics used to distinguish this species from alewives and rainbow smelt.

5. 316(b) Demonstraticn - New Haven. Tables 5.4-58-64. These tables do not differentiate between juvenile and adult. Of 418 328

the adult spottail shiners collected at New Haven in 1977 what percentage were collected during June and July? What percent of the spottail chiners collected during June and July were gravid?

6. Sec. 73.3(g)(iv) states that the applicant should state the specifications and operating features of special devices proposed for the protection of aquatic biota which would return aquatic bicta entering the intake facility to the natural water body or water course without harm. Please provide information on a) consideraticnc of this regulation at the New Haven site in the proposed design b) reasons for the proposed design c) potential designs or operating procedures to return larvalj juvenile and adult fishes to ambient lake conditions at New Haven d) proposed intake desiEns and fish return / deflection systets at o the r sout shcre LaPe Cntario generating stations.

418 329

TERRESTRIAL ECCLOGY

1. Section 2.2.1 U.3 3 p. 2.2-51-52. This sest1 :n re fe rences the fact that large numbers of hawks, waterbirds, and black birds migrate cround the southern shoreline of Lake Ontario and pass throuEh Cswego County, Please describe any potential effects that cooling towers cay have c t avian migrations at the !!ew Haven site.

kkb

. +

1 LAND USE AI;D AESTHETICS

1. (a) Has the applicant analyzed evaporative cooling ponds, spray ponds and spray canals of less than 5,600 acres ,

used in combination with cooling towers of reduced size and capacity from those proposed? ,

(b) Please provide such an analysis showing the various reasonable combinations of pond size and tower size / .

capacity. Include a listing of probable environmental impacts (i.e., fogging) and benefits (reduced size of cooling tower and plume). If the applicant feels that any combination system has severe cost or engineering restrictions, list those limitations in the response.

(c) Is it possible to utilize evaporative ponds, spray ponds, and spray canals in combination with other cooling modes such as a once through systeti? If so, please provide an appropriate analysis identical in scope to (b) above.

2. Considering the designation of New Haven as the prime site:

(a) Has this determination been made by a regional analysis (i.e., Mid Hudson versus Ontario Lowland)?

(b) Describe the conclusion of the regional analysis if utilized as a site analysis technique.

(c) Describe the basis of such conclusions.

A18 331

3 Which of the two sites, Stuyvesant or New Haven is considered superior with respect to each of the followinc and give the primary reason (s) for such a determination:

a) land use characteristics and scale b) ccmpatibility with adjacent and/or nearby land uses c) regional cocpatibility d) recreational land use compatibility e) residential land use compatibility f) potential and/or perceived scenic qualities

5) transportation; access h) industrial and coccercial land use compatibility.

4. Which site, (i.e. S t u; 'ms an t or New Haven) has the greatest potential for a successful landscape composition in the design sense. Give the basis for this de ercination.

5 Are there any unique features of statewide significance that will be adversely effected by this proposal at either site?

List any and describe what the impact might be.

Ccnsidering the balancing of all the environmental, engineerin6 and cost aspects of this proposal, please list each factor that favored New Haven over Stuyvesant ana, if possible, assign a rela-tive weight for each facter.

6. Cor.sidering the Applicant's characterisation of New Haven as rural-industrial (page 2.6-1, Part I Vol. V):

a) Is the industrial component considered to be the nearby power plants located near Nine Mile Point? If not what is the indus trial component?

418 332

b) Coes the Applicant consider the New Haven Site to be linked in the land use, sociceconomic and accthetic sense to the facilities at Nine Mile Point?

c) List the possible advantages associated with any such perceived linkage.

d) List the possible disadvantages and balance these against the advantaEes.

7. On page 2.1-20 of Part I Volume I of the applicaticn it is stated that there are "few unique recreational attractions in the 5 mi. around the site, and so...

What are the few unique recreation areas?

Why are these considered unique?

Do they have statewide significance?

List any resource considered to have statewide signifi-cance if any exist at either New Haven or Stuyvesant...

8. Pletse provide another oblique aerial photo lookinE SW, 'ASW, W (figure 2.1-13 Stuyvesr.nt Site) that shows the horison line.

418 5fE2-D