New York City Evaluation of New and Emerging Waste Management and Recycling Technologies Phase 3: Demonstration Project

Siting 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

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... v 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.0 Background and Study Objectives ............................................................. 1 Overview of Siting Study ............................................................................ 2 Content of Report ...................................................................................... 3

SITING CRITERIA ................................................................................................ 4 2.1 2.2 First-Level Screening Criteria .................................................................... 4 Second-Level Comparative Criteria ........................................................... 4

3.0

IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL SITES ........................................................... 9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Overview of Methodology .......................................................................... 9 Initial Site Identification .............................................................................. 9 Application of First-Level Screening Criteria ............................................ 10 Potential Sites for Comparative Evaluation .............................................. 11

4.0

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF SITES ........................................................ 12 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 Overview of Comparative Evaluation Process ......................................... 12 Brooklyn – Brooklyn Union Gas Company (Varick Ave. and Lombardy St.) ................................................................................... 16 Brooklyn – Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands Ave Wastewater Treatment Plant (Van Siclen Ave. and Seaview Ave.) ............................. 21 Manhattan – Randall’s Island (FDNY Property) ....................................... 27 Queens – Phelps Dodge Refinery (57th Ave. along Newtown Creek) ...... 33 Queens – Bowery Bay (near Riker’s Island Bridge along 19th Ave) ......... 39 Queens – Con Ed Astoria Complex (near 31st St. and 20th Ave) ............. 45 Staten Island – Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility(North of Channel) ..... 51 Staten Island – Rossville Site (Arthur Kill Rd.) ......................................... 57 Staten Island – Caracci Property (Arthur Kill Rd. and Chemical Lane) .... 63

5.0 6.0

SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE EVALUATION FINDINGS............................... 69 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................... 75 6.1 6.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 75 Recommendations ................................................................................... 75

ii

List of Tables Table 2.1-1. First-Level Screening Criteria for Site Identification ................................... 5 Table 2.2-1. Second-Level Screening Criteria for Comparative Site Evaluation ............ 6 Table 3.2-1 Potential Sites Identified for First-Level Screening ................................... 9 Table 3.3-1 Removed Sites due to Existing Wetlands and Floodplains ...................... 11 Table 4.1-1. Sites Identified for Comparative Evaluation ............................................. 12 Table 4.1-2. Type and Source of Information for Application of Comparative Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................... 12 Table 4.2-1. Brooklyn Union Gas Company – Key Site Information ............................ 16 Table 4.2-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Brooklyn Union Gas Company Site ................................................................................... 18 Table 4.2-3. Comparative Analysis of Brooklyn Union Gas Company ......................... 19 Table 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 ....................................... 23 Table 4.3-3. Comparative Evaluation of Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant .................................................................. 24 Table 4.4-1. Randall’s Island (FDNY Property) – Key Site Information ........................ 27 Table 4.4-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for Randall’s Island (FDNY Property) ..................................................................................... 30 Table 4.4-3. Comparative Evaluation of Randall’s Island (FDNY Property) ................. 31 Table 4.5-1. Phelps Dodge Refinery – Key Site Information ........................................ 33 Table 4.5-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Phelps Dodge Refinery ...... 33 Table 4.5-3. Comparative Evaluation of Phelps Dodge Refinery ................................. 35 Table 4.6-1. Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave. near Rikers Island Bridge) – Key Site Information ............................................................................... 39 Table 4.6-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave. near Rikers Island Bridge) ...................................................................... 41 Table 4.6-3. Comparative Evaluation of Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave.)........................ 42 Table 4.7-1. Con Ed Astoria Complex (near 31st St. and 20th Ave.) – Key Site Information ................................................................................ 45 Table 4.7-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Con Ed Astoria Complex (near 31st. St. and 20th Ave.) ................................................................... 47 Table 4.7-3. Comparative Evaluation of Con Ed Astoria Complex ............................... 48 Table 4.8-1. Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility (North of Channel) – Key Site Information ................................................................................ 51 Table 4.8-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Fresh Kills Landfill (North of Channel) .................................................................................. 53 Table 4.8-3. Comparative Evaluation of Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility(North of Channel) 54 Table 4.9-1. Staten Island – Rossville Site – Key Site Information .............................. 57 Table 4.9-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Staten Island Rossville Site 59 Table 4.9-3. Comparative Evaluation of Staten Island Rossville Site .......................... 60 Table 4.10-1. Staten Island – Caracci Site – Key Site Information ................................ 63 iii

Table 4.10-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Staten Island Caracci Site . 65 Table 4.10-3. Comparative Evaluation of Staten Island Caracci Site ............................. 66 List of Figures Figure 4.2-1. Figure 4.3-1. Figure 4.3-2. Figure 4.4-1. Figure 4.4-2. Figure 4.4-3. Figure 4.5-1. Figure 4.5-2. Figure 4.6-1. Figure 4.6-2. Figure 4.7-1. Figure 4.7-2. Figure 4.8-1. Site Location Map – Brooklyn Union Gas Company ................................ 17 Site Location Map – Penn & Fountain Landfills/Flatlands Ave WWTP .... 22 Aerial Satellite Photo – Penn & Fountain Landfills/Flatlands Ave WWTP 22 Site Location Map – Randall’s Island and Greater Vicinity....................... 28 Site Location Map – Randall’s Island and Site ......................................... 28 Aerial Satellite Photo – Randall’s Island (FDNY Property) ....................... 29 Site Location Map – Phelps Dodge Refinery ........................................... 34 Aerial Satellite Photo – Phelps Dodge Refinery ....................................... 34 Site Location Map – Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave.) .................................. 40 Aerial Satellite Photo – Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave.) ............................. 40 Site Location Map – Con Ed Astoria Complex (near 31st St. and 20th Ave.)46 Aerial Satellite Photo – Con Ed Astoria Complex (near 31st St. / 20th Ave.)46 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 ..................................... 58 Figure 4.9-2. Aerial Satellite Photo – Staten Island Rossville Site ................................ 58 Figure 4.10-1. Site Location Map – Staten Island Caracci Site .................................... 64 Figure 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 Mapping Appendix C: Endangered Species Documentation

iv

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 waste disposal facility within its municipal limits. Waste export is a component part of the City’s Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP), which creates a 20-year solid waste 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 to investigate “new and emerging” conversion technologies that could provide alternatives to conventional solid waste disposal—namely landfilling and conventional waste-to-energy— for 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 monopolistic national waste management industry. Sustainable resource reuse and recovery. New and emerging technologies have the potential to recover and reuse a greater portion of the solid waste stream than landfilling, and potentially can do so in a more sustainable manner than conventional waste-to-energy technology. Reliability and risk. If new and emerging technologies provided disposal options that 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 City’s export plan to other states in the future.

A key component of the SWMP is the development of a three-part study, The Evaluation of New and Emerging Solid Waste Management Technologies (Evaluation). Alternative Resources, 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 in widespread commercial use in the United States, or that have only recently become commercially operational. Proven, commercial solid waste management processes and technologies with widespread use in the United States, such as conventional waste-toenergy (i.e. incineration), landfilling, and stand-alone material recovery facilities, were not considered in the Evaluation. Additionally, aerobic MSW composting/co-composting was not part of the study, as DSNY already conducted a separate and thorough evaluation of aerobic MSW composting/co-composting.

v

In its first Phase, the Evaluation conducted a wide search to broadly define the range of new and emerging technologies to assess. Forty-three (43) technologies were identified that fell into five broad categories: Five Categories of New and Emerging Technologies  Thermal/Gasification. Thermal technologies use or produce a significant quantity of heat during the course of processing municipal solid waste. Types of products resulting from thermal processing include syngas (i.e., synthesis gas composed of hydrogen gases, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, which is combusted to produce electricity); char (a carbon-based solid residue); and organic liquids (e.g., light hydrocarbon). Digestion (Aerobic and Anaerobic). Digestion is the reduction of the organic components of MSW through decomposition by microbes, accompanied by the evolution of liquids and gases. The biological process of digestion may be aerobic or anaerobic, depending on whether air is introduced into the process. Anaerobic digestion produces a biogas, which is primarily methane and carbon dioxide, and a compost. Biogas can be combusted to generate electricity. Aerobic digestion produces compost that may be used as a soil amendment or fertilizer; aerobic digestion does not produce a biogas. Hydrolysis. Hydrolysis is a chemical reaction in which water reacts with another substance to form two or more new substances. Specifically with relation to MSW, hydrolysis refers to an acid-catalyzed reaction of the cellulose components of the waste (e.g., paper, food waste, yard waste) with water to produce sugars. Sugars are then converted to ethanol or other products such as levulinic acid, a commonly used chemical feedstock for producing specialty chemicals. Chemical Processing. The study identified the chemical process of depolymerization, which is the permanent breakdown of large molecular compounds into smaller, relatively simple compounds as a potential new and emerging waste conversion technology. The process converts the organic components of municipal solid waste into energy products (steam and electricity), oil, specialty chemicals, and carbon solids. Mechanical Processing for Fiber Recovery. Technologies included in this category mechanically 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 three levels 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) of the 43 technologies initially identified advanced to the most detailed level of comparative review, and were compared to conventional waste-to-energy, which is the most common vi

method used today for reducing the quantity of post-recycled waste being landfilled. These 14 technologies fell into anaerobic digestion, thermal, or hydrolysis categories. Based on success demonstrated outside of the United States by several companies, Phase 1 of the Evaluation found that anaerobic digestion and thermal processing technologies are commercially implemented outside of the U.S., and could be considered for commercial application in New York City, with suitable project definition and risk sharing between the public and a private sponsor. Comparison to Conventional Waste-to-Energy New and emerging technologies offer certain economic and environmental advantages in comparison to conventional waste-to-energy. Most notably, the emission levels from new and emerging technologies have the potential to be lower than with conventional waste-toenergy. The thermal technologies (gasification) and anaerobic digestion produce and combust 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 dioxins and heavy metals, would likely be lower. Overall, new and emerging technologies are also potentially 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 overall costs for these technologies. While thermal processing and anaerobic digestion technologies using MSW as a feedstock are being commercially applied outside the United States, these technologies have limited domestic operating experience when compared to conventional waste-to-energy technology. Currently, there are close to 100 conventional waste-to-energy facilities in operation in the U.S. processing a combined total of nearly 95,000 tons per day (tpd) of MSW. These waste-to-energy facilities have a wide range of rated design capacities, with the largest being approximately 3,000 tpd. Of the new and emerging technologies, thermal processing is expected to be comparable in facility size and flexibility, with the addition of multiple modules. Anaerobic digestion technologies generally have lower design capacities.

Applications for Handling New York City’s Municipal Solid Waste Based on the findings of the Phase 1 Study, the City initiated a focused, independent verification and validation of information for the most advanced anaerobic digestion, thermal processing, and hydrolysis technologies. This process was to determine if development of one or more pilot facilities for New York City may be warranted as part of a long-term plan for commercial application of such technologies. Phase 2 of the Evaluation provided further evidence that the advanced technology categories can reasonably meet potential expectations for application within New York City. Such expectations include diversion of MSW from landfill disposal through beneficial use of the waste, favorable environmental performance, and economic viability. To accomplish this goal, the Phase 2 Study had the following objectives: vii

Identify technologies representative of the advanced technology categories, whose sponsors are willing and able to provide detailed, relevant information for the City'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 and energy balances, operating data, products, residue requiring landfill disposal, and technology transfer issues. Complete an independent environmental review and evaluation of the participating technologies, including air pollutant emissions, water usage, wastewater discharge, product quality, and residue quality.

Technical, environmental, and economic evaluations were conducted for anaerobic digestion and thermal processing because these technologies are in commercial development within the United States. The Phase 2 study confirmed, through independent verification and validation of information, Phase 1’s previous findings. Key findings of the Phase 2 Study are summarized below:  Technical Findings. Anaerobic digestion and thermal processing technologies are in commercial operation internationally for mixed MSW, and could be successfully applied in New York City. Reference facilities reviewed as part of the Phase 2 Study provide a demonstration of performance of these technologies. With two exceptions, these reference facilities are commercially operating and processing mixed MSW. Technical information associated with the reference facilities was reviewed, and to the extent possible, owners, operators and/or other parties affiliated with the facilities were contacted as references for facility performance. An independent technical review and evaluation of mass and energy balances, including independent calculations of energy generating efficiency of the technologies, was completed. Recovery rates of recyclable materials and process products were confirmed, along with quantities of residue requiring landfill disposal. Equipment configurations and site layouts were reviewed, in consideration of land area required to support project development and operation.  Environmental Findings. Environmental findings show that, in general, anaerobic digestion and thermal processing technologies have the potential to offer better environmental performance than waste-to-energy facilities, including lower air emissions, increased beneficial use of waste, and reduced reliance on landfilling for residual waste disposal. The environmental findings are based on independent calculation, review and inter-comparison of environmental performance, including air pollutant emissions, water usage and wastewater discharge.

viii

Economic Findings. Recognizing that the economic analysis performed is of a planning level only, economic findings indicate that anaerobic digestion and thermal processing technologies (on a commercial scale) could be competitive with costs for current long-term export options. These findings are based on application of an economic model that considered capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and project revenues, for a long-term (20-year) operating period. The analysis included two project delivery approaches: implementation under a privately owned and financed design/ build/own/operate or "DBOO" project delivery approach, and implementation under a publicly owned and financed design/build/operate or "DBO" project delivery approach. Technology Transfer. Based on the analyses conducted for this phase of the Evaluation, no issues have been identified that would prevent transfer of design and operation experience from commercial operation overseas to application of the technologies in the United States. Project-specific and site-specific issues would need to be addressed during development of an Implementation Plan, such as identification of a site, definition of regulatory requirements, verification of markets for products, and (for some technologies) consideration of equipment components and configuration for preprocessing waste of the specific characteristics as generated in New York City. In particular, more space-intensive processes (those requiring more than 30 acres) are not practical to site within New York City.

Identifying Potential Sites for a Pilot Facility After the Phase 2 study resulted in the need to advance the SWMP’s directive to determine whether 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 perform a preliminary investigation of potential sites for a new and emerging technology facility. The Evaluation recognizes that developing a demonstration facility requires additional analysis to determine the technical and economic feasibility of a specific project. A SWMP-established task force of 11 members representing the Mayor, the City Council and the five borough presidents (the Task Force) engaged in a process to accomplish this goal, 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-level screening 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-level comparative criteria, which were intended to allow for inter-comparison of the particular strengths and/or limitations of the various sites. Identification of Potential Sites. Based on the first-level criteria, 19 potential sites were identified. As part of the site identification and first-level screening process, input was solicited from Task Force representatives from City agencies, the City Council and the borough presidents’ offices on potential sites to evaluate using the siting criteria. ix

Screening of Potential Sites for General Suitability. After consultation with the Task 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 each site and each criterion, a determination was made based on available information as to whether the site was "Acceptable", "Advantageous", or "Highly Advantageous" for that criterion. Weighting was not assigned to the criteria and no numerical scoring or ranking was conducted. The purpose of the comparative evaluation was to further evaluate whether there were sites available in the City that could be considered suitable for a pilot project. Consequently, sites were grouped into categories, identified as "Not Acceptable", "Acceptable," and "Advantageous or Highly Advantageous". The table below provides an overall summary of the comparative evaluation results.

x

Overview Summary of Comparative Evaluation Results Not Acceptable(a)  Penn & Fountain Landfills/Flatlands Ave WWTP (Brooklyn)(c) Randall’s Island – FDNY Property (Manhattan)(d) Advantageous or Acceptable   Phelps Dodge Refinery (Queens) Bowery Bay – along 19th Ave near Riker’s Island Bridge (Queens) Con Ed Astoria Complex (Queens) Rossville Site along Arthur Kill Road (Staten Island) Caracci Site along Arthur Kill Road (Staten Island) Highly Advantageous(b)  Fresh Kills Landfill – rock crushing site (Staten Island) ) Brooklyn Union Gas Company (e) (Brooklyn)

 

a. “Not Acceptable” means the site did not meet the acceptable ranking for one or more of the criteria. b. “Advantageous or Highly Advantageous” means the site ranked advantageous or highly advantageous for six (i.e., half) or more of the criteria. c. The Penn & Fountain Landfills/Flatlands Ave WWTP site did not meet the acceptable criterion for “Site Size and Configuration”, due to the presence of a significant amount of wetlands on the site. d. The Randall’s Island - FDNY site did not meet the acceptable criterion for Property Acquisition, because the site is not available; the site is currently occupied by the FDNY New York City Fire Academy and in active use as an FDNY training facility. e. Owned by National Grid (formerly Brooklyn Union Gas). Site is a potential brownfield requiring extensive investigation and potential remediation. Additionally, the site contains gas infrastructure that requires a buffer zone for safety and security reasons.

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

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

xii

1.0 1.1

INTRODUCTION 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 for such technologies in the City's Solid Waste Management Plan.1 2 The Phase 1 Study included a review of 43 technologies, categorized by type: thermal, digestion (aerobic and anaerobic), hydrolysis, chemical processing, and mechanical processing for fiber recovery. Through the Phase 1 Study, the City determined that the technology categories of anaerobic digestion and thermal processing were developed the furthest. Both of these technology 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 in operation and accepting MSW as an established, contracted disposal mechanism. The other 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 City determined that new and emerging technologies could play a role in the long-term management of the City's municipal waste, but that further evaluation and demonstration were needed to confirm that finding. As the next step in the evaluation process, the City initiated focused, independent verification and validation of information for eight of the most advanced, demonstrated anaerobic digestion, thermal processing and hydrolysis technologies. The objectives of the Phase 2 Study were (1) to provide a more detailed evaluation of the more advanced technologies and to independently verify and validate information to the extent possible; and (2) to address technical, environmental and cost issues that would arise during project development, and specifically City application of such technologies. The Phase 2 Study3 confirmed the findings of the Phase 1 Study and determined that it was warranted to further consider development of one or more demonstration facilities for New York City. One of the recommended next steps was to identify and investigate potential sites for one or more demonstration facilities. The identification and preliminary evaluation of potential sites is the subject of this Phase 3 Study.

1

Alternative 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 2006 3 Alternative Resources, Inc., Focused Verification and Validation of Advanced Solid Waste Management Conversion Technologies – Phase 2 Study, March 2006.

1

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 key site characteristics necessary for successful project development, as well as second-level comparative criteria, which were intended to allow for inter-comparison of the particular strengths and/or limitations of the various sites. Draft criteria were presented to the Task Force, convened to assist in the siting process for one or more conversion technology demonstration facilities. Comments from the Task Force were incorporated into the final siting criteria. Following development of the siting criteria, 19 potential sites were identified, with at least one site located within each of the City’s five boroughs. These potential sites were screened using the first-level screening criteria. As part of the site identification and firstlevel screening process, Task Force representatives provided input on the potential sites and to determine if other potential sites should be considered. Information was also presented to and discussed with the Task Force at scheduled meetings. Following these activities, nine potential sites located within four of the City’s boroughs (Brooklyn, Manhattan, Staten Island, and Queens) were identified for comparative evaluation. ARI completed the comparative evaluation for the nine identified sites using the secondlevel comparative evaluation criteria. Together with City representatives, ARI conducted a visual inspection of each site. In addition, ARI gathered readily-available information from public sources, including the City’s GIS data base, NYCEDC’s PLUTO database of properties, relevant street mapping, and other State and Federal resources (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on-line assessment of federally-listed endangered species, and Federal Emergency Management Agency 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

2

2.0

SITING CRITERIA

At the beginning of the Siting Study, ARI developed siting criteria in cooperation with the Task Force. The established criteria included first-level screening criteria and second-level comparative 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 screening of potential sites for overall suitability. The first-level screening criteria focused on key site characteristics that are necessary for, or otherwise would facilitate, successful project development (e.g., site size, zoning, access, and utility/potential interconnection availability). The first-level criteria also incorporated regulatory requirements of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation applicable to siting solid waste management facilities, as codified in Subpart 360-1.7 (Permit Requirements, Exemptions and Variances). These regulations restrict or otherwise limit or regulate development of solid waste management facilities within floodplains, wetlands, agricultural land, or areas protected for endangered 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 the particular strengths and/or limitations of the various sites. The second-level comparative criteria expanded upon the first-level screening criteria, addressing the first-level criteria in greater depth (e.g., configuration of a site as well as size) and adding other elements that could impact project development activities (e.g., land use, surrounding land use, consistency with local planning efforts, property acquisition, etc.). The comparative criteria included, as a guideline for application, descriptive factors for each criterion for which a particular site would be considered “acceptable” or could be considered “advantageous” or “highly advantageous”. The second-level comparative criteria are presented in Table 2.2-1. During application of the second-level comparative criteria, and particularly during discussions with the representatives of the Borough Presidents’ Offices, it was requested that evaluation of sites include consideration of environmental justice issues. During the course 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 more detailed consideration of community concerns.

3

Table 2.1-1. First-Level Screening Criteria for Site Identification
Criteria Site Size Description Minimum of six (6) to eight (8) acres of land suitable for development(*) (i.e., excluding floodplains, wetlands, and habitats for endangered species). Site must be located within an area zoned as a Manufacturing District, including M1, M2 and M3 designations. The facility must not be constructed or operated on floodplains unless provisions can be made to prevent the encroachment of flood waters upon the facility. The minimum site size of six (6) to eight (8) acres must be exclusive of floodplains. The facility must not be constructed or operated in a manner that causes or contributes to the taking of any endangered or threatened species or to the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. The minimum site size of six (6) to eight (8) acres must be exclusive of areas protected for endangered species. The facility must not be constructed or operated within the boundary of a regulated wetland. The minimum site size of six (6) to eight (8) acres must be exclusive of regulated wetlands. The site was not, and is not proposed to be, taken through the exercise of eminent domain; the site does not consist predominantly of agricultural soil group 1 or 2 (Land Classification System as certified by the New York State Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets); and, the site is not within an agricultural district formed pursuant to the Agriculture and Markets Law. The site must be readily accessible via major transportation routes, with limited access through residential areas or areas that contain other sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals). Utilities (water, sewer, gas and electricity) are available at the site, but may need to be upgraded to meet facility needs. A gas main and/or transmission or substation facilities are located within proximity to the site (no analysis has been performed as to the ability to interconnect the project with such facilities; a project-specific interconnection study would need to be performed at the appropriate stage of project development).

Zoning Floodplains (**)

Endangered Species (**)

Wetlands (**)

Agricultural Land (**)

Site Access

Utility Availability

Potential Interconnection Availability

( )

* There is some flexibility regarding a smaller site size; however, sites of 4-5 acres in size or less would limit technology 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).

4

Table 2.2-1. Second-Level Screening Criteria for Comparative Site Evaluation
Criteria Site Size and Configuration Acceptable (Meets “First Level Criteria”, at a minimum) 6-8 acres of buildable area (i.e., excluding floodplains, wetlands, habitat for endangered species) without irregular site configuration or severe topography. Minimum site size would limit the size of facility that can be constructed to a smaller scale demonstration facility for anaerobic digestion or gasification technologies, i.e., a facility less than 500 tons per day in size Accessible by truck via heavily-traveled, major transportation routes, with limited access through residential areas or areas populated by other sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals); potential for minimal traffic impacts on local roadways in proximity to the site Advantageous 8-15 acres of buildable area (i.e., excluding floodplains, wetlands, habitat for endangered species) without irregular site configuration or severe topography ; potential to accommodate a larger-scale demonstration or commercial facility for anaerobic digestion or gasification technologies from 500 to 1500 tons per day in size Highly Advantageous >15 to 30 acres of buildable area (i.e., excluding floodplains, wetlands, habitat for endangered species) without irregular site configuration and severe topography; potential to accommodate the greatest range of facility sizes and technologies, for anaerobic digestion and gasification technologies from 1500 to 3000 tons per day in size

Site Access

Offers at least one benefit to sites that would be classified “Acceptable”; e.g., accessible by truck via major transportation routes, with no access through residential areas or areas populated by other sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals); access to site along lesstraveled route, with reduced potential for traffic impacts on local roadways in proximity to the site; rail access; barge access; other unique advantage(s) Previously developed property with structures demolished or potentially usable structures still in place; low potential for site contamination based on previous and/or current use

Offers at least two benefits to sites that would be classified "Acceptable"; e.g., accessible by truck via major transportation routes, with no access through residential areas or areas populated by other sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals); access to site along lesstraveled route, with reduced potential for traffic impacts on local roadways in proximity to the site; rail access; barge access; other unique advantage(s) Undeveloped property, or property that is cleared, or has potentially usable buildings, and is otherwise ready for redevelopment; potential for site contamination not likely based on previous and/or current use

Land Use (Previous and Current)

Previously developed property with unusable structures still in place; moderate potential for site contamination based on previous and/or current use

5

Table 2-.2-1 Second-Level Screening Criteria for Comparative Site Evaluation (Continued)
Criteria Surrounding Land Use Acceptable (Meets “First Level Criteria”, at a minimum) Some presence of nonmanufacturing, such as commercial use, but not sensitive uses surrounding the property Site development would be generally consistent with specified local planning efforts Advantageous M1, M2, or M3 Manufacturing uses only surrounding the property Highly Advantageous M2 or M3 only Manufacturing uses surrounding the property

Consistency with Local Planning Efforts (e.g., land use, transportation, conservation, wetlands, stormwater management) Zoning

Site development would be predominantly consistent with specified local planning efforts

Site development would be fully consistent with specified local planning efforts

Must be zoned M1, M2, or M3 No or limited existing buffer on site or little potential to build on-site buffer to reduce potential impacts and visibility of site development off site.

Site is zoned M2 or M3.

Site is zoned M3.

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

Moderate existing on site buffer or potential to construct such a buffer on site to reduce potential impacts and visibility of site development from off site. Required utilities may be available at the site without the need for upgrading

Significant existing on site buffer and/or potential for construction of buffer on site which could minimize potential impacts and visibility off site.

Utility Availability

Utilities (water, sewer, gas, electricity) may be available at the site, but would likely need to be upgraded to meet facility needs A gas main and transmission or substation facilities are located within proximity to the site (no analysis has been performed as to the ability to interconnect with such facilities; a project-specific interconnection study would need to be performed at the appropriate stage of project development).

Not Applicable

Potential Interconnection Availability

A gas main and transmission or substation facilities are located at or adjacent to the site (no analysis has been performed as to the ability to interconnect with such facilities; a project-specific interconnection study would need to be performed at the appropriate stage of project development).

Not Applicable

6

Table 2-.2-1 Second-Level Screening Criteria for Comparative Site Evaluation (Continued)
Criteria Property Acquisition Acceptable (Meets “First Level Criteria”, at a minimum) Site is available at a high cost and/or with restrictive conditions or other impediments; restrictions and/or impediments could preclude or potentially delay site use Offers the least beneficial project economics (i.e., costs exceed those for current waste transportation and disposal contracts) based on a life cycle economic analysis considering facility size specific to the site footprint and geometry, capital and operating costs, and product revenues Potential environmental benefits are comparable overall to those with current waste transportation and disposal practices. Benefits to be considered qualitatively are materials and energy recovery, transportation impacts, use of fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions Advantageous Site is available for sale or lease, with no known restrictions or impediments that would preclude or potentially delay acquisition of the site for project development Offers “comparable” project economics (i.e., costs are equivalent to those for current waste transportation and disposal contracts) based on a life cycle economic analysis considering facility size specific to the site footprint and geometry, capital and operating costs, and product revenues Potential environmental benefits are greater overall than those with current waste transportation and disposal practices Highly Advantageous Site is owned by the City or by an interested thirdparty, facilitating use or acquisition of site for project development

Project Economics

Offers “beneficial” project economics (i.e., costs are less than those for current waste transportation and disposal contracts) based on a life cycle economic analysis considering facility size specific to the site footprint and geometry, capital and operating costs, and product revenues

Potential Environmental Benefits

Potential environmental benefits are substantially greater overall than those with current waste transportation and disposal practices

7

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 City’s PLUTO 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 assessment was performed of whether compatible facilities (e.g. closed landfills, power plants, wastewater treatment facilities, and waste management operations facilities) existed within close proximity in order to utilize the potential site’s energy products. Third, sites were narrowed to those that the City could acquire with relative ease. This included potential sites that were publicly owned and were considered either inactive or had an existing use that could relocate to another location. Also considered were private sites listed as vacant property in the PLUTO database. 19 potential sites initially were identified from these first three steps, which are listed in Table 3.2-1. The City and ARI then consulted with the Task Force (e.g. City Council’s Solid Waste Management Committee, Department of Sanitation, Department of Parks and Recreation, Department of Citywide Administrative Services, Borough Presidents’ Offices) to determine if these initial potential sites posed any substantial issues or red flags to warrant removal. Task Force representatives were also asked to supply additional locations they 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 reduced the site list to nine locations. The City and ARI recommended these nine sites for comparative 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 are listed below in Table 3.2.-1. Table 3.2-1. Potential Sites Identified for First-Level Screening (a) Borough Brooklyn    Bronx   Site 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.) Hunts Point Waste Water Treatment Plant (1240 Viele Ave. and south of Ryawa Ave.) Hunts Point Food Distribution Center and Marine Transfer Station (Food Center Drive and Farragut St.) 8

  Manhattan Queens          Staten Island   

Hell Gate (132nd St. and Robert F. Kennedy Bridge) Ferry Point Park (Hutchinson River Parkway) Randall’s Island (FDNY Property) Phelps Dodge Refinery (57th Ave. along Newtown Creek) Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave. near Riker’s Island Bridge) Bowery Bay Astoria Energy Power Plant (Steinway St. and Berrian 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.) 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, acreage and zoning. The City’s GIS Hydrology Mapping, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory were used to determine if and how much of the site was within a designated wetland or floodplain. USFWS was also consulted regarding federally-listed endangered species at potential sites. Google Earth and street maps were used to make an initial determination about site accessibility via major transportation routes and to assess if potential sites were located in close proximity to residential areas and other facilities with potential sensitive receptors, such as schools and hospitals. Information regarding utilities and interconnection availability was requested from the Department of Environmental Protection, Con Ed and National Grid; however, complete information about each site was not available during the study period. Given the Evaluation’s limitations in acquiring this data, additional investigation of the availability and quality of utilities, as well as the project-specific potential for interconnections to a gas main and the power grid, as applicable, would need to be conducted at the appropriate stage of project development in order to definitively determine each site’s potential. 9

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

Table 3.3-1. Removed Sites due to Existing Wetlands and Floodplains(a) Borough Brooklyn Bronx     Queens      Site Newtown Creek Marine Transfer Station (1Kingsland Ave.) Hunts Point Waste Water Treatment Plant (1240 Viele Ave. and south of Ryawa Ave.) Hunts Point Food Distribution Center and Marine Transfer Station (Food Center Drive and Farragut St.) Hell Gate (132nd St. and Robert F. Kennedy Bridge) Bowery Bay Astoria Energy Power Plant (Steinway St. and Berrian 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.)

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

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

3.4

Potential Sites for Comparative Evaluation

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

10

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) Brooklyn   Manhattan Queens     Staten Island    Site Brooklyn Union Gas Company (Varick Ave. and Lombardy St.) Penn & Fountain Landfills/Flatlands Ave WWTP (Van Siclen Ave and Seaview Ave.) Randall’s Island (FDNY Property) Phelps Dodge Refinery (57th Ave. along Newtown Creek) Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave. near Riker’s Island Bridge) Con Ed Astoria Complex (near 31st St. and 20th Ave.) Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility(north of channel) Rossville Site (Arthur Kill Rd.) Caracci Property (Arthur Kill Rd. and Chemical Lane)

a. Boroughs are listed alphabetically; sites within each borough are listed in no particular order. 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. This information was supplemented with visual observations from site visits that were conducted in June 2010. In most cases, the sites were viewed from public ways along the periphery of the property, since approval to access and enter the properties was not available from the site owners at the time of the visits. The only exception was the Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility site on Staten Island; DSNY accompanied ARI and other City representatives on a walkover of that site. Planning-level, life cycle economic analyses were prepared to comparatively assess project economics. Analyses were completed for three project sizes each for anaerobic digestion and thermal processing, with the project sizes corresponding to the acreage available for development. The "acceptable" site sizes (6-8 acres) were assumed to be suitable for up to a 300 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility or up to a 700 ton per day thermal processing facility. The "advantageous" site sizes (up to 15 acres) were assumed to be suitable for up to a 600 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility or up to a 1,100 ton per day thermal processing facility. The "highly advantageous" site sizes (greater than 15 acres up to 30 acres) were assumed to be suitable for up to a 900 ton per day anaerobic digestion 11

facility or up to a 1,800 ton per day thermal processing facility. Inputs to the model included capital and operating costs and projected revenue for sale of electricity and other products (e.g., recyclables, compost, vitrified aggregate, commodity products). Model inputs were based on the information in the Phase 2 report, updated by ARI using recent information associated with study and procurement activities for similar projects. An allowance was made for site acquisition costs and general site development costs, but such costs are representative only and not site-specific. Certain sensitivities were considered, including capital cost premiums for construction in New York City, sale price for electricity, and the impact of disposing of compost from anaerobic digestion if that material cannot be sold for beneficial use. A projected tipping fee was calculated for the year 2015, which was presumed 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 tipping fee for anaerobic digestion ranging from $70 to $90 per ton, with little variability for project size. The projected tipping fees for thermal processing varied by size, with larger projects demonstrating 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 the Siting Study comparative analysis, these projected tipping fees were compared to the future, 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 this value at 3% per year to the year 2015, an estimated tipping fee of $128 per ton for export and disposal was calculated. Based on visual observations from the site visits along with readily-available public information gathered for the sites and the planning-level economic analyses described above, the comparative evaluation criteria were applied to each of the nine (9) potential sites identified for comparative evaluation. The type and source of information generally gathered for each of the individual comparative criteria are summarized in Table 4.1-2. The evaluations for each of the nine sites are provided in Sections 4.2 through 4.10, in the order in which the sites are listed in Table 4.1-1. A summary of the findings, including intercomparison of the sites, is provided in Section 5.0.

12

Table 4.1-2. Type and Source of Information for Application of Comparative Evaluation Criteria Criteria Site Size and Configuration (including consideration of the presence of wetlands, floodplains, and endangered species that could impact usable site area)     Type and Source of Information NYCEDC PLUTO database of properties for site acreage NYCityMap (online mapping portal) for property boundaries and confirmation of acreage City GIS hydrology mapping (including floodplain, wetland, waterways, and other inland hydrology features) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM); see Appendix A for FEMA FIRM maps for the nine (9) sites comparatively evaluated U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (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-listed endangered species (user-generated electronic letter at USFWS website); supplemental telephone call with USFWS Long Island Field Office to verify user-generated information; see Appendix C for endangered species documentation Google Earth aerial satellite photos and visual observations from site visits Google Maps and visual observations from site visits Information provided by Task Force members, representatives of the Borough Presidents’ Offices, and other City sources Visual observations from site visits Information provided by Task Force members, representatives of the Borough Presidents’ Offices, and other City sources Visual observations from site visits Zoning information for surrounding properties (NYCEDC PLUTO database, NYCityMap online mapping portal) Information provided by Task Force members, representatives of the Borough Presidents’ Offices, and other City sources

 Site Access Land Use (Previous and Current)    Surrounding Land Use    Consistency with Local Planning Efforts (e.g., land use, transportation, conservation, wetlands, stormwater management) 

13

Table 4.1-2. Type and Source of Information for Application of Comparative Evaluation Criteria (Continued) Criteria Zoning Nuisance Issues (e.g., noise, odor, visual impact) Utility Availability(a)     Potential Interconnection(a) Availability Property Acquisition      Project Economics  Type and Source of Information NYCEDC PLUTO database of properties and NYCityMap (online mapping portal) Visual observations during site visits

Visual observations during site visits City DEP GIS mapping Visual observations during site visits City DEP GIS mapping NYCEDC PLUTO database of properties and NYCityMap (online mapping portal) for information on site ownership Information provided by Task Force members, representatives of the Borough Presidents’ Offices, and other City sources Site owners were not contacted as part of this siting study to inquire about property acquisition Planning-level, life cycle economic analysis considering facility size specific to the site footprint, expected capital and operating costs, estimated product revenue Qualitative assessment considering facility size specific to the site footprint

Potential Environmental Benefits

(a). Data regarding the availability of utilities and interconnection capability was requested from the Department of Environmental Protection, Con Ed and National Grid; however, requested data was not available at the time of the Evaluation. Additional investigation of the availability and quality of utilities, as well as the project-specific potential for gas and electric interconnections, as applicable, would need to be conducted at the appropriate stage of project development in order to definitively determine each site’s potential.

14

3.6

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

The site consists of two rectangular areas on the National Grid’s property of the former Brooklyn Union Gas Company in Brooklyn. The south plot, with an estimated area of 6 to 7 acres, 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 the intersection of Lombardy Street and Porter Avenue. Varick Avenue runs along the east side of both areas, but appears to traverse the site and does not appear to be a publiclyaccessible roadway in this location. The total area of the two plots is approximately 14 acres, and is zoned M3-1. Access to the site is from Route 278, and then along local roads for less than one mile. There are some commercial and residential areas along the local access roadways. Table 4.2-1 provides key site information. Figure 4.2-1 provides a site location 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 not contain floodplains, wetlands, or federally-listed endangered species (see Appendices A, B and C). The site exhibits visual evidence of past development, with growth of vegetation associated with an unused site. The larger property (i.e., beyond the portion considered as “the site”) is partially occupied by buildings. Portions of the larger property were observed to be actively in use as a National Grid Meter Operations Facility. In addition, the larger property contains gas infrastructure that requires a buffer zone for safety and security reasons. National Grid has at this time no plans to develop, sell, or lease the land based on informal staff conversations. The area surrounding the site is made up of both industrial and residential areas. There is a residential area adjacent to the north plot (across Porter Avenue). There is a residential area within one block of the south plot. There is a playground at the intersection of Vandervoort Street and Meeker Avenue, within two blocks of the site. Table 4.2-1. Brooklyn Union Gas Company – Key Site Information Owner National Grid Block.Lot 2837.1 Zoning M3-1 Acres 14 Estimated Usable Acres 14

15

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

16

The Brooklyn Union Gas Company site was evaluated via application of the second-level screening criteria listed and described in Section 2.2. A summary of the findings is presented 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 Site Size and Configuration Site Access Land Use (Previous and Current) Surrounding Land Use Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Zoning Nuisance Issues Utility Availability Potential Interconnection Availability Property Acquisition Project Economics Potential Environmental Benefits X X X X X X X X X X X Acceptable Advantageous X Highly Advantageous

17

Table 4.2-3. Comparative Evaluation of Brooklyn Union Gas Company
Criteria Site Size and Configuration Site Specific Information The site consists of two, adjacent, rectangular plots of land on the Brooklyn Union Gas Company site with a combined area of approximately 14 acres. The topography of the site is flat. The site does not contain floodplains, wetlands, or federally listed endangered species. As a result, the estimated usable area is approximately 14 acres. 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 is less than one mile. There are some commercial and residential areas between Route 278 and the site. The site is currently vacant land. Other portions of the overall property are occupied by National Grid Meter Operations Facility. Based upon the past use of the site as a gas company, there is the potential for site contamination. The surrounding area is a mixture of industrial and residential buildings. There is a playground located at Vandevoort Ave. and Meeker Ave, which is within two blocks of the site. There are several baseball fields adjacent to the site on Maspeth Ave. and Vandevoort Ave. The area surrounding the site is zoned M3-1 and M1-1. Within one block of the site, there is a residential area zoned R6. There are no known inconsistencies with local planning efforts. Determination Advantageous 8-15 acres of buildable area (i.e., excluding floodplains, wetlands, habitat for endangered species) without irregular site configuration or severe topography.

Site Access

Acceptable Accessible by truck via heavilytraveled, major transportation routes, with limited access through residential areas or areas populated by other sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals); potential for minimal traffic impacts on local roadways in proximity to the site.

Land Use (Previous and Current)

Surrounding Land Use

Advantageous Previously developed property with no existing structures. Site is not known to have contamination, but potential exists based on previous site use, requiring extensive investigation and potential remediation. Acceptable Some presence of non-manufacturing, such as commercial use; some limited sensitive uses surrounding the property.

Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Zoning

The site is zoned M3-1.

Acceptable Site development would be generally consistent with specified local planning efforts Highly Advantageous Site is zoned M3.

18

Table 4.2-3. Comparative Evaluation of Brooklyn Union Gas Company (Continued)
Criteria Nuisance Issues (e.g., noise, odor, visual impact) Utility Availability Site Specific Information The site size is sufficient so that the facilities could be constructed away from the local streets. It is possible that an on-site buffer could be constructed. Based upon the site location, utilities are most likely available at the site. Determination Advantageous Potential to construct a moderate buffer on site to reduce potential impacts and visibility of site development from off site. Acceptable Required utilities (water, sewer, gas, electricity) may be available at the site, but would likely need to be upgraded to meet facility needs Acceptable A gas main and transmission or substation facilities are likely located within proximity to or possibly at the site (no analysis has been performed as to the ability to interconnect with such facilities; a project-specific interconnection study would need to be performed at the appropriate stage of project development). Acceptable Site is privately owned. The owner has no existing plans to sell, lease, or develop the site given its current use as a buffer to the neighboring community. Further conversations with National Grid needed to determine the site’s potential availability. Advantageous Site size supports development of a larger-scale facility (up to 600-tpd for anaerobic digestion or up to 1,100-tpd for thermal processing), with estimated tipping fees (2015) less than or comparable to projected costs of $128 per ton for export and disposal.

Potential Interconnection Availability

Based upon site location and previous use, the availability of gas transmission lines is likely at or in the vicinity of the site; nearest substation and/or high voltage power transmission lines not determined.

Property Acquisition

The site is currently owned by National Grid.

Project Economics

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

19

Table 4.2-3. Comparative Evaluation of Brooklyn Union Gas Company (Continued)
Criteria Potential Environmental Benefits Site Specific Information The usable size of the site (approximately 14 acres) could support development of up to a 600 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility or up to an 1,100 ton per day thermal processing facility. Determination Advantageous Considering potential project size supported by the site, potential environmental benefits are expected to be greater than current waste transportation and disposal practices (e.g., reduced long-haul truck, rail or barge traffic; reduced greenhouse gas emissions; increased materials recovery, renewable energy generation, reduced landfilling)..

20

4.3

Brooklyn – Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands Ave Wastewater Treatment Plant (Van Siclen Ave. and Seaview Ave.)

The site consists of a fenced, rectangular area located on the southern part of the Flatlands Avenue 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 Avenue and Van Siclen Avenue. Access to the site is primarily over local roads, and includes travel through residential and other mixed-use/commercial areas. The nearest highway is the Shore/Belt Parkway, with entrance/exit ramps to Pennsylvania Avenue. The site has an estimated 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 of the 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 area on 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 of the site. Wetlands mapping available at the time of the site visit indicated a small area of emergent wetlands in the southern part of the site. A subsequent review of updated, digital wetlands mapping obtained after the site visit indicated that approximately 75 percent of the site 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 the recommended 6-8 acres specified for first-level screening and less than the 6-8 acres specified 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 the Gateway shopping center. Immediately adjacent to the southern portion of the site is a small area of community gardens. South of the site is Shore Parkway. South of the Shore Parkway is the Gateway National Recreation Area, a National Park site.

Table 4.3-1. Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands Ave WWTP – Key Site Information Owner NYC DEP Block.Lot 4452.150 Zoning M3-1 Acres 10 (estimated) Estimated Usable Acres <3

21

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

22

The Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands Avenue WWTP site was evaluated via application of the second-level screening criteria listed and described in Section 2.2. A summary of the findings is presented in Table 4.3-2. The more detailed evaluation results follow, in Table 4.3-3. Table 4.3-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands Avenue WWTP Criteria Acceptable Does not meet the Acceptable Criterion due to the presence of wetlands X X X X X X X(a) X(a) X X X Advantageous Highly Advantageous

Site Size and Configuration

Site Access Land Use (Previous and Current) Surrounding Land Use Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Zoning Nuisance Issues Utility Availability Potential Interconnection Availability Property Acquisition Project Economics Potential Environmental Benefits

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

23

Table 4.3-3. Comparative Evaluation of Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant
Criteria Site Size and Configuration Site Specific Information The site is the rectangular, southern portion of the lot that contains the Flatlands Ave WWTP. The total area is estimated to be 10 acres. The topography of the site is flat. The site contains little or no floodplains, and no federally listed endangered species. The site contains wetlands. It is estimated that 75% of the site is within wetlands area. Due to the presence of wetlands, the estimated usable area is less than 3 acres. From the Brooklyn Bridge, access to the 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 is approximately nine miles. The nearest highway is the Shore/Belt Pkwy, with exit/entrance ramps to Pennsylvania Avenue. The site is currently vacant land, and does not appear to have been previously developed. The northern portion of the property, adjacent to the site, is occupied by the Flatlands Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant. Review of historical aerial photos indicates that this site was formerly a wetland area and has been filled. The site is bounded to the north by the Flatlands Avenue WWTP; to the east by Hendrix Creek (with the Gateway Shopping Center beyond the creek); to the south by Shore Parkway (with the Gateway National Recreation Area beyond the parkway); and to the west by Van Siclen Avenue with the Starrett City residential housing development Determination Does Not Meet Acceptable Criterion The usable area of the site is estimated to be less than 3 acres, and therefore, does not meet the “acceptable” criterion of 6-8 usable acres.

Site Access

Acceptable Accessible by truck via heavilytraveled, major transportation routes, with limited access through residential areas or areas populated by other sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals); potential for minimal traffic impacts on local roadways in proximity to the site.

Land Use (Previous and Current)

Highly Advantageous Previously undeveloped property; potential for site contamination not likely.

Surrounding Land Use

Acceptable Co-location benefits with the WWTP. However, some presence of nonmanufacturing, such as commercial use, and some sensitive uses (including residential) near to the property.

24

Table 4.3-3. Comparative Evaluation of Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant (Continued)
Criteria Site Specific Information on the opposite site of Van Siclen Ave. There is a rehabilitation center located on Van Siclen Avenue northwest of the site. The Gateway Shopping Center located east of the site (beyond the creek) is zoned C4-2. The residential housing development located west of the site is zoned R5. The area southeast of the site is zoned as Park. There are no known inconsistencies with local planning efforts. Determination

Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Zoning Nuisance Issues (e.g., noise, odor, visual impact) Utility Availability

The site is zoned M3-1. The site is rectangular in shape and, inclusive of the wetlands area, is of sufficient size for the potential to construct a moderate buffer. Based upon the site location, utilities are expected to be available at the site, but require verification.

Acceptable Site development would be generally consistent with specified local planning efforts Highly Advantageous Site is zoned M3. Advantageous Potential to construct a moderate buffer on site to reduce potential impacts and visibility of site development from off site. Acceptable Required utilities (water, sewer, gas, electricity) may be available at the site, but would likely need to be upgraded to meet facility needs Acceptable A gas main and transmission or substation facilities may be located within proximity to the site, but requires verification (no analysis has been performed as to the ability to interconnect with such facilities; a project-specific interconnection study would need to be performed at the appropriate stage of project development). Highly Advantageous The site is owned by the City (NYC DEP), potentially facilitating use of the site for project development. Acceptable Site size supports development of only a small demonstration facility that would offer the least beneficial project economics; viability of project economics requires determination.

Potential Interconnection Availability

The nearest utility interconnections were not determined. Utilities mapping was requested from the City DEP GIS department, but was not made available during the time period of the study. Based upon the site location, interconnections could potentially be available within proximity to the site.

Property Acquisition

The site is owned by NYC Department of Environmental Protection.

Project Economics

The usable size of the site (less than 3 acres) could support development of only a small demonstration facility (less than 300 tons per day). Project economics have not been established for this small size range, but would be the least beneficial and potentially not economically viable.

25

Table 4.3-3. Comparative Evaluation of Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant (Continued)
Criteria Potential Environmental Benefits Site Specific Information The usable size of the site (less than 3 acres) could support development of only a small demonstration facility (less than 300 tons per day). Determination Acceptable Considering potential project size supported by the site (less than 300 tons per day, offers the least amount of potential environmental benefits compared to current waste transportation and disposal practices (e.g., limited benefits such as reduced long-haul truck, rail or barge traffic; reduced greenhouse gas emissions; increased materials recovery, renewable energy generation, reduced landfilling).

26

4.4

Manhattan – Randall’s Island (FDNY Property)

The site is located on Randall’s Island in Manhattan. It is owned by the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), and is currently occupied by the FDNY training facility. There are buildings 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 one mile. There are ball fields on Randall's Island along the route to the site. Table 4.4-1 provides key site information. Figures 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 provide a site location map for the greater area and a site location map specific to Randall’s Island, respectively. Figure 4.4-3 provides an aerial satellite photo of the site. Review of aerial photographs and other mapping indicates that the site is flat and almost entirely paved. The site contains some floodplain areas, along the east side of the site adjacent to the East River (see Appendix A). Mapping and other supporting information indicates no wetlands or federally-listed endangered species on the site (see Appendices B and 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 Randall’s Island Park (which is zoned as Park). Randall’s Island Park includes numerous baseball and other playing fields. The site is bounded to the south by the Randall's Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. During a site visit 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 wastewater treatment plant) were observed. A subsequent site visit in October 2011 showed that the whole site was actively used by the FDNY, 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. Randall’s Island (FDNY Property) – Key Site Information Owner FDNY Block.Lot 1819.40 Zoning M3-1 Acres 23 Estimated Usable Acres 20+

27

Figure 4.4-1. Site Location Map – Randall’s Island and Greater Vicinity

Figure 4.4-2. Site Location Map – Randall’s Island and Site

28

Figure 4.4-3. Aerial Satellite Photo – Randall’s Island (FDNY Property)

29

The Randall’s Island (FDNY Property) site was evaluated via application of the second-level screening criteria listed and described in Section 2.2. A summary of the findings is presented 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 Randall’s Island (FDNY Property) Criteria Site Size and Configuration Site Access Land Use (Previous and Current) Surrounding Land Use Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Zoning Nuisance Issues Utility Availability Potential Interconnection Availability Does not meet the Acceptable Criterion due to current active as a training facility X X X X X X X X X X Acceptable Advantageous Highly Advantageous X

Property Acquisition

Project Economics Potential Environmental Benefits

30

Table 4.4-3. Comparative Evaluation of Randall’s Island (FDNY Property)
Criteria Site Size and Configuration Site Specific Information The site is the FDNY parcel on Randall's Island, and consists of 23 acres. The site configuration is roughly rectangular. The topography of the site is flat. The site does not contain wetlands or federally listed endangered species. The site does contain floodplains adjacent to the East River. Considering this floodplain zone, the estimated usable area of the site is 20 or more acres. 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/ Triborough Plaza access road. Left at Randall's Island Road. The distance travelled on local roads (all on Randall's Island) is less than one mile. There are ball fields located on Randall's Island along the route to the site. The site is currently occupied by the FDNY New York City Fire Academy. There are 14 buildings on the site. Most of the site is paved. The previous land use is unknown. The site is bounded to the north by Randall's Island Park (zoned Park). The site is bounded to the east by the East River. The site is bounded to the south by the Randall's Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (zoned M3). The site is bounded to the west by Triborough Plaza, which is a service road. There are no known inconsistencies with local planning efforts. Determination Highly Advantageous >15 to 30 acres of buildable area (i.e., excluding floodplains, wetlands, habitat for endangered species) without irregular site configuration and severe topography.

Site Access

Acceptable Accessible by truck via heavilytraveled, major transportation routes, with limited access past sensitive receptors (ball fields on Randall’s Island); potential for minimal traffic impacts on local roadways in proximity to the site.

Land Use (Previous and Current)

Surrounding Land Use

Advantageous Previously developed property with potentially usable structures and/or infrastructure; low potential for site contamination based on current use; co-location benefits with WWTP. Acceptable Some presence of non-manufacturing, surrounding the site (including Park land).

Consistency with Local Planning Efforts

Acceptable Site development would be generally consistent with specified local planning efforts

31

Table 4.4-3. Comparative Evaluation of Randall’s Island (FDNY Property) (Continued)
Criteria Zoning Nuisance Issues (e.g., noise, odor, visual impact) Site Specific Information The site is zoned M3-1. The site is roughly rectangular in shape. The site size allows adequate space for construction of a buffer. Note: at a site visit on 6/16/10, odors were detectable from the wastewater treatment plant. Based upon site location, utilities are likely available at the site. Determination Highly Advantageous Site is zoned M3. Highly Advantageous Site size provides significant potential for construction of buffer on site which could minimize potential impacts and visibility off site. Acceptable Utilities (water, sewer, gas, electricity) may be available at the site, but would likely need to be upgraded to meet facility needs Advantageous A gas main and transmission or substation facilities are located at or adjacent to the site (no analysis has been performed as to the ability to interconnect with such facilities; a project-specific interconnection study would need to be performed at the appropriate stage of project development). Does Not Meet Acceptable Criterion The site is not available. It is owned by the City (FDNY) and used heavily as a training facility. Relocation of the training facility would significantly impede the development of a demonstration facility. Highly Advantageous Site size supports development of the largest-scale facilities (up to 900-tpd for anaerobic digestion; up to 1,800-tpd for thermal processing), with estimated tipping fees (in 2015) less than projected costs of $128 per ton for export and disposal.

Utility Availability

Potential Interconnection Availability

Based upon the site location, interconnections (gas and/or electricity) are available at the site given the adjacent waste water treatment plant and Con Ed facility.

Property Acquisition

The site is owned by FDNY as an active training facility.

Project Economics

The usable size of the site (20+ acres) could support development of up to a 900 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility at an estimated tipping fee of approximately $70-$90 per ton or up to an 1,800 ton per day thermal processing facility at an estimated tipping fee of approximately $100-$110 per ton (2015 values).

32

Table 4.4-3. Comparative Evaluation of Randall’s Island (FDNY Property) (Continued)
Criteria Potential Environmental Benefits Site Specific Information The usable size of the site (20 or more acres) could support development of up to a 900 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility or up to an 1,800 ton per day thermal processing facility. Determination Highly Advantageous Considering potential project size supported by the site, potential environmental benefits are expected to be the most advantageous compared to current waste transportation and disposal practices (e.g., reduced longhaul truck, rail or barge traffic; reduced greenhouse gas emissions; increased materials recovery, renewable energy generation, reduced landfilling).

33

4.5

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

The site is the former location of the Phelps Dodge Refinery (copper refinery) in Queens, located along Newtown Creek south of Laurel Hill Boulevard/56th Road. The site is made up of several privately owned lots; ownership of some of the lots is unknown. The site is presently undeveloped but not necessarily vacant land. Miscellaneous vehicles and equipment were observed to be located on the site, along with a construction trailer that appeared to be occupied. The total area of the site is 15.67 acres, and is zoned M3-1. The nearest highway is Route 278, with access to the site along approximately one mile of local roadways. Access onto the site is over a railroad crossing and along what appears to be a private or dedicated roadway to parcels (including the site) located between the railroad tracks and Newtown Creek. The railroad tracks are used regularly by the Long Island Railroad and the New York & Atlantic Railroad, and provide an opportunity for a demonstration facility to have rail access. Similarly, the waterfront location on Newtown Creek may provide an opportunity for barge access. Table 4.5-1 provides key site information. Figure 4.5-1 provides a site location map. Figure 4.5-2 provides an aerial satellite photo of the site. The topography of the Phelps Dodge Refinery site is relatively flat, and the property is roughly rectangular in shape. The site does not contain wetlands or federally listed endangered species (see Appendices B and C). However, the site does contain floodplains, along Newtown Creek and extending onto approximately half of the site. The estimated usable area of the site, excluding the flood zone, is approximately 7 acres. The site is bounded to the north by the railroad tracks. The site is bounded to the east by industrial land. The site is bounded to the south by Newtown Creek. The site is bounded to the west by Restaurant Depot, a restaurant supply company. The area surrounding the site is heavily industrial. During a site visit on June 16, 2010, a UPS facility, a Department of Sanitation Garage, and Maspeth Recycling Company were observed in the area surrounding the site.

Table 4.5-1. Phelps Dodge Refinery – Key Site Information Owner Spencer Invest. Phelps Dodge Refining Unknown Block.Lot 2529.30 2529.40 2529.43 2529.45 2529.47 2529.49 2529.60 Zoning M3-1 M3-1 M3-1 Acres 2.78 1.78 11.11 Estimated Usable Acres

Total

M3-1

15.67

7+

34

Figure 4.5-1. Site Location Map – Phelps Dodge Refinery

Figure 4.5-2. Aerial Satellite Photo – Phelps Dodge Refinery

35

The Phelps Dodge Refinery site was evaluated via application of the second-level screening criteria listed and described in Section 2.2. A summary of the findings is presented in Table 4.5-2. The more detailed evaluation results follow, in Table 4.5-3. Table 4.5-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Phelps Dodge Refinery Criteria Site Size and Configuration Site Access Land Use (Previous and Current) Surrounding Land Use Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Zoning Nuisance Issues Utility Availability Potential Interconnection Availability Property Acquisition Project Economics Potential Environmental Benefits X X X(a) X(a) X X X X X X Acceptable X X Advantageous Highly Advantageous

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

36

Table 4.5-3. Comparative Evaluation of Phelps Dodge Refinery
Criteria Site Size and Configuration Site Specific Information The site is made up of several lots owned by various private owners. Ownership of some of the lots is unknown. The total area of the site is 15.67 acres. The estimated usable area is approximately 7 acres. The topography of the site is flat. The site does not contain wetlands or federally listed endangered species. The site does contain floodplain, along the border with Newtown Creek. From the nearest highway (Rte 278), access to the site is as follows: Route 278 East to Exit 35, Follow signs for 48th Street and merge onto 53rd Avenue. Right at 48th Street. Right at 56th Road/Laurel Hill Blvd. Continue on 56th Road. Left on 43rd Street. The distance traveled on local roads is approximately one mile. The access to the property crosses railroad tracks on 43rd St.; the roadway south of the railroad tracks is in poor condition, and may be a private way. There is potential for rail access and/or barge access. The site is currently undeveloped, but not necessarily vacant, land (i.e., presence of trailer, vehicles, equipment, etc. observed on the site). The former Phelps Dodge Refinery was a copper smelting and refining plant. The refinery was demolished in 2000. Remediation of hazardous materials has occurred on the site. The surrounding area is heavily industrial. On 57th Ave., there is a Department of Sanitation District Garage and Maspeth Recycling. On 56th Ave., there is a United Parcel Service facility. The site is bounded to the north by 57th Ave. and by railroad tracks. The site is bounded to the east Determination Acceptable 6-8 acres of buildable area (i.e., excluding floodplains, wetlands, habitat for endangered species) without irregular site configuration or severe topography.

Site Access

Highly Advantageous Accessible by truck via heavilytraveled, major transportation routes, with limited access through residential areas or areas populated by other sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals); potential for minimal traffic impacts on local roadways in proximity to the site. Potential for rail and barge access.

Land Use (Previous and Current)

Acceptable Previously developed property; no permanent structures on the site; status of site remediation activities not determined.

Surrounding Land Use

Highly Advantageous M2 or M3 zoning and manufacturing uses surrounding the site

37

Table 4.5-3. Comparative Evaluation of Phelps Dodge Refinery (Continued)
Criteria Site Specific Information Determination

Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Zoning Nuisance Issues (e.g., noise, odor, visual impact) Utility Availability

Potential Interconnection Availability

Property Acquisition

by industrial buildings. The site is bounded to the south by Newtown Creek. Beyond Newtown Creek is the Brooklyn Union Gas Co. The site is bounded to the west by Restaurant Depot, a restaurant supply company. The area surrounding the site is zoned M3-1. There is also an area zoned M21 located north of 57th Ave. and the railroad tracks. There are no known inconsistencies Acceptable with local planning efforts. Site development would be generally consistent with specified local planning efforts The site is zoned M3-1. Highly Advantageous Site is zoned M3. The site size is sufficient so that the Advantageous Potential to construct a moderate facilities could be constructed away buffer on site to reduce potential from the local streets. It is possible impacts and visibility of site that an on-site buffer could be development from off site. constructed. Based upon the site location, utilities Acceptable are expected to be available at the site, Utilities (water, sewer, gas, and but require verification. electricity) may be available at the site but would likely need to be upgraded to meet facility needs. The nearest utility interconnections Acceptable were not determined. Utilities mapping A gas main and transmission or was requested from the City DEP GIS substation facilities may be located department, but was not made within proximity to the site, but requires available during the time period of the verification (no analysis has been study. performed as to the ability to interconnect with such facilities; a project-specific interconnection study would need to be performed at the appropriate stage of project development). The site consists of multiple parcels Advantageous Site is privately owned. owned by several private owners, with some owners unknown.

38

Table 4.5-3. Comparative Evaluation of Phelps Dodge Refinery (Continued)
Criteria Project Economics Site Specific Information The usable size of the site (approximately 7 acres) could support development of up to a 300 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility at an estimated tipping fee of approximately $70-$90 per ton or up to a 700 ton per day thermal processing facility at an estimated tipping fee of approximately $140-$150 per ton (2015 values). Determination Acceptable Site size supports development of a smaller-scale facility (up to 300-tpd for anaerobic digestion, up to 700-tpd for thermal processing). Estimated tipping fees (2015) for anaerobic digestion could be less than projected costs of $128 per ton for export and disposal; estimated tipping fees (2015) for thermal processing could be more than projected costs for export and disposal. Acceptable Considering potential project size supported by the site (i.e., smallest sizes), potential environmental benefits are expected to be the least advantageous compared to current waste transportation and disposal practices (e.g., reduced long-haul truck, rail or barge traffic; reduced greenhouse gas emissions; increased materials recovery, renewable energy generation, reduced landfilling.

Potential Environmental Benefits

The usable size of the site (approximately 7 acres) could support development of up to a 300 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility or up to a 700 ton per day thermal processing facility.

39

4.6

Queens – Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave. near Riker’s Island Bridge)

The site is located north and west of the intersection of 19th Avenue and Rikers Island Bridge Road in Queens. The site is roughly triangular in shape. It is made up of several lots, all of which are owned by New York City and leased to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for La Guardia Airport. The NYC Department of Small Business Services is the controlling agency for oversight of the airport leases. The total area of the site is 17 acres, and is zoned M1-1. Access to the site is from Route 278, and then along local roads for approximately one mile. There are some commercial and residential areas along the local roadways that access the site. Table 4.6-1 provides key site information. Figure 4.6-1 provides a site location map. Figure 4.6-2 provides an aerial satellite photo of the site. The topography of the site is extremely steep. The maximum elevation of the site is over 50 feet above sea level. Areas of the site along 19th Avenue and 45th Street have extremely steep topography. Review of historical USGS maps indicates that rock outcroppings exist on the site. The site does not contain wetlands, floodplains, or federally listed endangered species (see Appendices A, B, and C). An estimate was made of the potentially usable area of the site. There is an existing building and parking area on the north corner of the site, along 45th Street. Also, the area of rock outcropping was estimated using historical USGS maps. Excluding the area occupied by the existing building, parking area and rock outcropping, it is estimated that the usable area of the site is approximately 11 acres. However, the steep topography may further limit the available are. Therefore for this study’s purpose, the site is presumed to be limited to six to eight acres. The site is bounded to the north by the Bowery Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant and by Bowery Bay. The site is bounded to the east by the Rikers Island Bridge. The site is bounded to the south and west by 19th Avenue. The site is bounded to the north and west by 45th Street. The area surrounding the site is a mixture of industrial and residential areas. East of the site, beyond Rikers Island Bridge, there are several ball fields. One block south of the site, along 20th Avenue, there are residential areas. A playground is located on 20th Avenue, one block south of the site. Table 4.6-1. Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave. near Rikers Island Bridge) – Key Site Information
Owner Department of Small Business Services (management) Block.Lot 777.1 776.1 767.8900 767.1 766.1 754.8901 754.15

Zoning M1-1

Acres 17

Estimated Usable Acres 11

40

Figure 4.6-1. Site Location Map – Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave.)

Figure 4.6-2. Aerial Satellite Photo – Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave.)

41

The Bowery Bay site was evaluated via application of the second-level screening criteria listed and described in Section 2.2. A summary of the findings is presented in Table 4.6-2. The more detailed evaluations results follow, in Table 4.6.3.

Table 4.6-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave. near Rikers Island Bridge) Criteria Site Size and Configuration Site Access Land Use (Previous and Current) Surrounding Land Use Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Zoning Nuisance Issues Utility Availability Potential Interconnection Availability Property Acquisition Project Economics Potential Environmental Benefits X X X(a) X(a) X X X X X Acceptable X(b) X X Advantageous Highly Advantageous

a. Limited information was available to complete the evaluation for this criterion. Verification is required. b. The estimated usable site area is 11 acres, depending on the ability to level the site topography. Additional geotechnical studies would need to be conducted to determine the extent of fill and the extent of bedrock on the site. For study purposes, the site is presumed to be limited to 6-8 acres due to topography.

42

Table 4.6-3. Comparative Evaluation of Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave.)
Criteria Site Size and Configuration Site Specific Information The site consists of several lots owned by the Department of Small Business Services. The total area of the site is 17 acres. The site is roughly triangular in shape. The topography of the site is extremely steep. The site does not contain floodplains, wetlands, or federally listed endangered species. The northwest corner of the site is occupied by a building and parking lot; the area of the building and parking lot is estimated to be 3.2 acres. The site has extremely steep topography; review of historical maps indicates that some of the high elevation areas are fill, and some are rock outcroppings. The highest elevation part of the site is estimated to be 3.5 acres. The estimated useable area is up to approximately 11 acres, depending on the ability to level the site topography. Impacts of topography may limit developable area to the smaller range of 6-8 acres. From the nearest highway (Rte 278), access to the site is as follows: Route 278 East to Exit 44, Merge onto Astoria Blvd. N. Right at 43rd Street. Right at Ditmars Blvd. Left at Hazen St. Left on 43rd Street. The distance traveled on local roads is approximately one mile. There are commercial and residential areas between Route 278 and the site. The land is currently undeveloped. Previous land use is unknown. Determination Acceptable 6-8 acres of buildable area (i.e., excluding floodplains, wetlands, habitat for endangered species), due to the irregular site configuration and steep topography.

Site Access

Acceptable Accessible by truck via heavilytraveled, major transportation routes, with limited access through residential areas or areas populated by other sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals); potential for minimal traffic impacts on local roadways in proximity to the site.

Land Use (Previous and Current) Surrounding Land Use

The surrounding area is a mixture of industrial, commercial and residential areas. The site is bounded to the north by the Bowery Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant. The site is bounded

Highly Advantageous Previously undeveloped property with no structures in place, low potential for site contamination. Acceptable Some presence of non-manufacturing uses surrounding the property.

43

Table 4.6-3. Comparative Evaluation of Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave.) (Continued)
Criteria Site Specific Information to the east by Rikers Island Bridge; there are several baseball fields located east of the bridge. The site is bounded to the south by 19th Ave. Across 19th Ave, there are industrial businesses. There are residential areas one block further south along 20th Ave. The site is bounded to the west by industrial businesses. The area north of the site is zoned M3-1. The area south and west of the site is zoned M1-1. There are residential areas zoned R4 and R5 within two blocks of the site. There is a park located on 20th Ave., within two blocks of the site. There are no known inconsistencies with local planning efforts. Determination

Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Zoning Nuisance Issues (e.g., noise, odor, visual impact)

The site is zoned M1-1. The overall site size is sufficient so that it is possible an on-site buffer could be constructed.

Utility Availability

Based upon the site location, utilities are expected to be available at the site, but require verification.

Potential Interconnection Availability

The nearest utility interconnections were not determined. Utilities mapping was requested from the City DEP GIS department, but was not made available during the time period of the study.

Acceptable Site development would be generally consistent with specified local planning efforts Acceptable Must be zoned M1. Advantageous Moderate existing on site buffer or potential to construct such a buffer on site to reduce potential impacts and visibility of site development from off site. Acceptable Utilities (water, sewer, gas, and electricity) may be available at the site, but would likely need to be upgraded to meet facility needs. Acceptable A gas main and transmission or substation facilities may be located within proximity to the site, but requires verification (no analysis has been performed as to the ability to interconnect with such facilities; a project-specific interconnection study would need to be performed at the appropriate stage of project development).

44

Table 4.6-3. Comparative Evaluation of Bowery Bay (along 19th Ave.) (Continued)
Criteria Property Acquisition Site Specific Information The Port Authority leases the site from the City. The Department of Small Business Services manages the airport leases. While there are no current plans to use the site, the site is intended for possible future expansion of La Guardia airport. Considering the usable acres and topography, the site could potentially support development of up to a 300 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility at an estimated tipping fee of approximately $70-$90 per ton or up to a 700 ton per day thermal processing facility at an estimated tipping fee of approximately $140-$150 per ton (2015 values). Determination Highly Advantageous The site is owned by the City, facilitating the use of the site for project development.

Project Economics

Potential Environmental Benefits

Considering the usable acres and topography, the site could potentially support development of up to a 300 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility or up to a 700 ton per day thermal processing facility.

Acceptable Site size and topography could potentially support development of a smaller-scale facility (up to 300-tpd for anaerobic digestion, up to 700-tpd for thermal processing). Estimated tipping fees (2015) for anaerobic digestion could be less than projected costs of $128 per ton for export and disposal; estimated tipping fees (2015) for thermal processing could be more than projected costs for export and disposal. Acceptable Considering potential project size supported by the site (i.e., smallest sizes), potential environmental benefits are expected to be the least advantageous compared to current waste transportation and disposal practices (e.g., reduced long-haul truck, rail or barge traffic; reduced greenhouse gas emissions; increased materials recovery, renewable energy generation, reduced landfilling.

45

4.7

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

The site consists of a rectangular area on the property of the Con Ed Astoria Complex in Queens. The site is located north and east of the intersection of 20th Avenue and 31st. Street. The total area of the site is approximately seven to nine acres, and is zoned M3-1. Access to the site is from Route 278, and then along local roads for approximately one and a half miles. There are some commercial and residential areas along the local roadways that access the site. Access onto the site is through a gated entrance road onto the Con Ed Astoria Complex property. Table 4.7-1 provides key site information. Figure 4.7-1 provides a site location map. Figure 4.7-2 provides an aerial satellite photo of the site. The topography of the site is relatively flat. The site does not contain federally listed endangered species (see Appendix C). A small area of wetlands exists in the central portion of the site (See Appendix B). The site contains floodplains along the southeast border of the site, along Luyster Creek (See Appendix A). The estimated usable area of the site is approximately five to seven acres. The site is bounded to the north and west by the Con Ed property. The site is bounded to the east by Luyster Creek. Further to the east, beyond Luyster Creek, is an industrial area which includes the Astoria Energy Plant and the Bowery Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant. The site is bounded to the south by 20th Avenue. There are residential areas within 2 blocks south of the site. There are ball fields within two blocks of the site on the Con Ed property. There is a park within two blocks southeast of the site. Con Ed has been approached about develop the site for other manufacturing and industrial uses not related to its operations, but is currently constrained in pursuing any future development plans because of an ongoing litigation with the Public Service Commission. Additionally, on February 24, 2012, Champlain Hudson Power Express Inc. filed a Joint Proposal with the New York Public Service Commission (to which the City was a signatory) in connection with its request for regulatory approval to construct a high voltage transmission line from Canada to New York City. According to that document, the company contemplates terminating its transmission line and constructing a DC to AC converter station at this site. Therefore, it is not clear whether this site would be available for this project. Importantly for this project, that document noted the existence of transmission constraints at this location. Table 4.7-1. Con Ed Astoria Complex (near 31st St. and 20th Ave.) – Key Site Information Owner Con Ed Block.Lot 850.1 Zoning M3-1 Acres ~ 7-9 Estimated Usable Acres ~ 5-7

46

Figure 4.7-1. Site Location Map – Con Ed Astoria Complex (near 31st St. and 20th Ave.)

Figure 4.7-2. Aerial Satellite Photo – Con Ed Astoria Complex (near 31st St. and 20th Ave.)

47

The Con Ed Astoria Complex site was evaluated via application of the second-level screening criteria listed and described in Section 2.2. A summary of the findings is presented in Table 4.7-2. The more detailed evaluation results follow, in Table 4.7-3. Table 4.7-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Con Ed Astoria Complex (near 31st. St. and 20th Ave.) Criteria Site Size and Configuration Site Access Land Use (Previous and Current) Surrounding Land Use Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Zoning Nuisance Issues Utility Availability Potential Interconnection Availability Property Acquisition Project Economics Potential Environmental Benefits X X X X X X X X X Acceptable X X X Advantageous Highly Advantageous

48

Table 4.7-3. Comparative Evaluation of Con Ed Astoria Complex
Criteria Site Size and Configuration Site Specific Information The site is a portion of the Con Ed Astoria Complex property. The site is located in the southeast part of the Con Ed property. The total area of the site is approximately 7-9 acres. The site is generally rectangular; Luyster Creek runs along the southeast border of the site, and the property slopes from elevation 10 feet down to the water level. The site contains floodplains along the southeast border of the creek. The site also contains a small area of wetlands in the central part of the site. The site does not contain federally listed endangered species. The estimated usable area is approximately 5-7 acres. From the nearest highway (Rte 278), access to the site is as follows: Route 278 East to Exit 44, Merge onto Astoria Blvd. N. Right at Steinway Street. Left at 20th Avenue. The distance traveled on local roads is approximately 1.5 miles. There are commercial and residential areas between Route 278 and the site. The site is on the Con Ed Astoria Complex property. Some structures may be present on the site. Portions of the site are covered with vegetation. The previous use of the site is unknown. Potential for use of existing infrastructure due to co-location with generating facilities at that site. The surrounding area is a mixture of industrial and residential areas. The site is bounded to the north by the Con Ed Astoria Complex and Bowery Bay. The site is bounded to the south and east by Luyster Creek; on the far side of Luyster Creek there are the Astoria Energy Plant and the Bowery Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant. South of the site, there are several baseball Determination Acceptable 6-8 acres of buildable area (i.e., excluding floodplains, wetlands, habitat for endangered species) without irregular site configuration or severe topography.

Site Access

Acceptable Accessible by truck via heavilytraveled, major transportation routes, with limited access through residential areas or areas populated by other sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals); potential for minimal traffic impacts on local roadways in proximity to the site.

Land Use (Previous and Current)

Advantageous Previously developed property, potentially with unusable structures still in place; potential to use existing infrastructure due to co-location with Con Ed Plant.

Surrounding Land Use

Acceptable Some presence of non-manufacturing uses surrounding the property.

49

Table 4.7-3. Comparative Evaluation of Con Ed Astoria Complex (Continued)
Criteria Site Specific Information fields. The site is bounded to the south and west by 20th Ave. There are industrial and residential areas along 20th Ave. The site is bounded to the west by the Con Ed property. The area north of the site is zoned M3-1. The area east of the site is zoned M1-1 and M3-1. There are residential areas zoned R4, R5 and R6A within two blocks south of the site. There is a park located on 20th Ave., within two blocks of the site. There are no known inconsistencies with local planning efforts. Determination

Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Zoning Nuisance Issues (e.g., noise, odor, visual impact)

The site is zoned M3-1. The usable site area is 5-7 acres. The site is set back from 20th Ave. by approximately 700 feet. The site boundary bordering Luyster Creek does not allow much buffer area. It is possible that an on-site buffer could be constructed. Based upon co-location of the site with other generating facilities, utilities are expected to be available at the site. Some electrical interconnection availability may exist. There are limitations on the availability of natural gas in this area.

Acceptable Site development would be generally consistent with specified local planning efforts. Highly Advantageous Site is zoned M3. Acceptable Limited existing buffer on site or limited potential to build on-site buffer to reduce potential impacts and visibility of site development off site.

Utility Availability

Potential Interconnection Availability

Property Acquisition

The site is currently owned by Con Ed.

Advantageous Required utilities may be available at the site without the need for upgrading. Acceptable A gas main and transmission or substation facilities are located within proximity to the site, but the potential may be very limited (no analysis has been performed as to the ability to interconnect with such facilities; a project-specific interconnection study would need to be performed at the appropriate stage of project development). Acceptable Site is privately owned, and may be available once existing litigation issues are resolved. Cost and conditions of acquisition are not yet determined.

50

Table 4.7-3. Comparative Evaluation of Con Ed Astoria Complex (Continued)
Criteria Project Economics Site Specific Information The usable size of the site (approximately 5-7 acres) could support development of up to a 300 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility at an estimated tipping fee of approximately $70-$90 per ton or up to a 700 ton per day thermal processing facility at an estimated tipping fee of approximately $140-$150 per ton (2015 values). The usable size of the site (approximately 5-7 acres) could support development of up to a 300 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility or up to a 700 ton per day thermal processing facility. Determination Acceptable Site size supports development of a smaller-scale facility (up to 300-tpd for anaerobic digestion, up to 700-tpd for thermal processing). Estimated tipping fees (2015) for anaerobic digestion could be less than projected costs of $128 per ton for export and disposal; estimated tipping fees (2015) for thermal processing could be more than projected costs for export and disposal. Acceptable Considering potential project size supported by the site (i.e., smallest sizes), potential environmental benefits are expected to be the least advantageous compared to current waste transportation and disposal practices (e.g., reduced long-haul truck, rail or barge traffic; reduced greenhouse gas emissions; increased materials recovery, renewable energy generation, reduced landfilling.

Potential Environmental Benefits

51

4.7

Staten Island – Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility (North of Channel)

The site consists of a portion of the Fresh Kills Landfill, north of a stream channel and west of the West Shore Expressway. The property is owned by the Department of Sanitation, and is roughly triangular in shape. The total area of the parcel is 93 acres, consisting of a waste transfer station, a yard waste composting operation, a rock crushing operation, and related infrastructure. The area of interest is in the area of the current rock crushing operations extending south to the transfer station and east to the property boundary. The estimated usable area is approximately 7 acres, and is zoned M3-1. The site is accessible from Route 440, with travel less than one mile along a service road that parallels the highway. The access route (service road) does not pass through residential areas or by other sensitive receptors. There is active rail access to the site, currently used to load-out waste from the transfer station. Table 4.8-1 provides key site information. Figure 4.8-1 provides a site location map. Figure 4.8-2 provides an aerial satellite photo of the site. The property contains floodplains and wetlands beyond the limits identified for site use (see Appendices A and B). The site does not contain any federally listed endangered species (See Appendix C). The site is bounded to the north by industrial property. The Staten Island (Arthur Kill) Power Plant is approximately one-half mile north of the site. The site is bounded to the east by the West Shore Expy (Route 440). The site is bounded to the south by a creek. Beyond the creek is another part of the Fresh Kills Landfill, which is in the process of being converted into a park. The site is bounded to the west by the Arthur Kill stream.

Table 4.8-1. Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility (North of Channel) – Key Site Information Owner Sanitation Block.Lot 2685.100 Zoning M3-1 Acres 93 Estimated Usable Acres 7

52

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

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

53

The Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility site was evaluated via application of the second-level screening criteria listed and described in Section 2.2. A summary of the findings is presented in Table 4.8-2. The more detailed evaluation results follow, in Table 4.8-3. Table 4.8-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility (North of Channel) Criteria Site Size and Configuration Site Access Land Use (Previous and Current) Surrounding Land Use Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Zoning Nuisance Issues Utility Availability Potential Interconnection Availability Property Acquisition Project Economics Potential Environmental Benefits X X X X X X X X X X Acceptable X X Advantageous Highly Advantageous

54

Table 4.8-3. Comparative Evaluation of Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility (North of Channel)
Criteria Site Size and Configuration Site Specific Information The site consists of a portion of the Fresh Kills Landfill. The area is north of a stream channel and west of the West Shore Expy. The site is roughly triangular in shape. The total area of the lot is 93 acres. The area of interest is in the area of the rock crushing operations, extending south to the transfer station and east to the property boundary. The estimated usable area is approximately 7 acres. The property contains floodplains and wetlands, outside the area defined as the site. The site does not contain any federally listed endangered species. From the nearest highway (Rte 440), access to the site is as follows: Route 440 South to Exit 7 (Victory Blvd.). Merge onto West Shore Expy. West Service Road. The distance traveled on local roads is less than one mile, exclusively on the Service Road. There are no residential areas between Route 440 and the site. The site is served by rail. The current land use is a rock crushing facility. There is a NYC Department of Sanitation transfer station and a yard waste composting operation present on the property that contains the "site". The previous land use was a municipal solid waste landfill. The site is bounded to the north by industrial property; the Arthur Kill generating station is approximately 1/2 mile from the site. The site is bounded to the east by the West Shore Expy (Route 440). The site is bounded to the south by a creek, beyond which is the Fresh Kills Landfill. The site is bounded to the west by Arthur Kill stream. The surrounding zoning to the Determination Acceptable 7 acres of buildable area (i.e., excluding floodplains, wetlands, habitat for endangered species) without irregular site configuration or severe topography.

Site Access

Highly Advantageous Offers at least two benefits to sites that would be classified as “Acceptable”; i.e., accessible by truck via major transportation routes, with no access through residential areas or areas populated by other sensitive receptors; availability of rail access.

Land Use (Previous and Current)

Advantageous Previously developed property with no structures requiring demolition; colocation with other waste management activities provides benefit of potentially usable (shared) infrastructure. Highly Advantageous M2 or M3 Manufacturing uses surrounding the property

Surrounding Land Use

55

Table 4.8-3. Comparative Evaluation of Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility (North of Channel) (Continued)
Criteria Site Specific Information north, west and south is M3-1. The surrounding zoning to the east is M2-1. There are no known inconsistencies with local planning efforts. Determination

Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Zoning Nuisance Issues (e.g., noise, odor, visual impact) Utility Availability

The site is zoned M3-1. The estimated usable site area is approximately 7 acres. There is existing natural buffer and significant area for the construction of additional buffer. Discussion with Sanitation indicates that utilities are available at the site. The Staten Island (Arthur Kill) Con Ed power plant is located north of the site. Transmission lines would need to be constructed between the site and the power plant. The distance between the site and the power plant is 1.36 mi. along local roadways of about 0.5 mi. direct.

Potential Interconnection Availability

Property Acquisition

The property is owned by the NYC Department of Sanitation.

Project Economics

The usable size of the site (approximately 7 acres) could support development of up to a 300 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility at an estimated tipping fee of approximately $70-$90 per ton or up to a 700 ton per day thermal processing facility at an estimated tipping fee of approximately $140-$150 per ton (2015 values).

Acceptable Site development would be generally consistent with specified local planning efforts Highly Advantageous Site is zoned M3. Highly Advantageous Significant existing onsite buffer and/or potential for construction of buffer on site which could minimize potential impacts and visibility off site. Advantageous Required utilities may be available at the site without the need for upgrading. Advantageous A gas main and transmission or substation facilities are located at or adjacent to the site (i.e., Arthur Kill Power Plant) (no analysis has been performed as to the ability to interconnect the project with such facilities; a project-specific interconnection study would need to be performed at the appropriate stage of project development). Highly Advantageous Site is owned by the City (Sanitation), facilitating use of the site for project development Acceptable Site size supports development of a smaller-scale facility (up to 300-tpd for anaerobic digestion, up to 700-tpd for thermal processing). Estimated tipping fees (2015) for anaerobic digestion could be less than projected costs of $128 per ton for export and disposal; estimated tipping fees (2015) for thermal processing could be more than projected costs for export and disposal.

56

Table 4.8-3. Comparative Evaluation of Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility (North of Channel) (Continued)
Criteria Potential Environmental Benefits Site Specific Information The usable size of the site (approximately 7 acres) could support development of up to a 300 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility or up to a 700 ton per day thermal processing facility. Determination Acceptable Considering potential project size supported by the site (i.e., smallest sizes), potential environmental benefits are expected to be the least advantageous compared to current waste transportation and disposal practices (e.g., reduced long-haul truck, rail or barge traffic; reduced greenhouse gas emissions; increased materials recovery, renewable energy generation, reduced landfilling.

57

4.9

Staten Island – Rossville Site (Arthur Kill Rd.)

The site is a rectangular-shaped portion of a larger parcel located along Arthur Kill Road west of the intersection with Bloomingdale Road in Staten Island. The southern portion of the overall parcel (i.e., the area along Arthur Kill Road) is considered to be "the site" for purpose of this siting study. The site is owned by the Department of Corrections. The total site area is approximately 8 acres, and is zoned M3-1. Access to the site is from Route 440, and then along local roads for approximately one-half mile. There are commercial and mixed-use areas along the local roadways, including at the intersection of Bloomingdale and Arthur Kill Roads. This intersection is congested during peak traffic times and has poor drainage conditions. Arthur Kill Road may require upgrades for heavy truck traffic. Table 4.9-1 provides key site information. Figure 4.9-1 provides a site location map. Figure 4.9-2 provides an aerial satellite photo of the site. The topography of the property slopes downward gradually from south to north. The southern portion of the larger property, i.e. in the area of the site, does not contain floodplains, wetlands, or federally listed endangered species (see Appendices A, B, and C). The site is bounded to the north by the northern portion of the lot and by another lot which contains two large concrete gas storage tanks (currently abandoned). The site is bounded to the east by Donjon Metal, a scrap metal yard for scrapped boats. The site is bounded to the south by Arthur Kill Road. The site is bounded to the west by property that includes a “paint ball” recreation area, a golf driving range, and a garden supply store. There is a Lowes retail store under construction further west along Arthur Kill Road. There is a State Park Preserve within one-half mile southwest of the site. There is a correctional facility within one mile northwest of the site.

Table 4.9-1. Staten Island – Rossville Site – Key Site Information Owner Department of Corrections Block.Lot 7162.100 Zoning M3-1 M2-1 Acres 32.9 total 8 along Arthur Kill Rd Estimated Usable Acres 8

58

Figure 4.9-1. Site Location Map – Staten Island Rossville Site

Figure 4.9-2. Aerial Satellite Photo – Staten Island Rossville Site

59

The Staten Island Rossville site was evaluated via application of the second-level screening criteria listed and described in Section 2.2. A summary of the findings is presented in Table 4.9-2. The more detailed evaluation results follow, in Table 4.9-3. Table 4.9-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Staten Island Rossville Site Criteria Site Size and Configuration Site Access Land Use (Previous and Current) Surrounding Land Use Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Zoning Nuisance Issues Utility Availability Potential Interconnection Availability Property Acquisition Project Economics Potential Environmental Benefits X X X(a) X(a) X Acceptable X X X X X X X Advantageous Highly Advantageous

a. Limited information was available to complete the evaluation for this criterion. Verification is required.

60

Table 4.9-3. Comparative Evaluation of Staten Island Rossville Site
Criteria Site Size and Configuration Site Specific Information The site is a rectangular portion of a larger, irregularly-shaped parcel located north of Arthur Kill Road and west of Bloomingdale Road. The site consists of the southern portion of the parcel along Arthur Kill Road. The total site area is approximately 8 acres. The estimated usable area is also approximately 8 acres. The topography of the site slopes downward gradually from south to north. The site does not contain floodplains, wetlands, or federally listed endangered species. From the nearest highway (Rte 440), access to the site is as follows: Route 440 South to Exit 3 (Bloomingdale Road). Merge onto West Service Road/Veterans Road West. Right at Bloomingdale Road. The distance traveled on local roads is approximately one-half mile. There is a commercial shopping area between Route 440 and the site. The intersection of Veterans Road West and Bloomingdale Road is an acute right turn. This intersection is a commercial area. The intersection of Bloomingdale Road and Arthur Kill Road is congested during peak traffic times, and has poor drainage, resulting in flooding and icing. Arthur Kill Road is narrow and may require upgrade for heavy truck traffic. The site is currently vacant. Mapping indicates there are several buildings on the site. The previous use of the site is unknown. Determination Acceptable 6-8 acres of buildable area (i.e., excluding floodplains, wetlands, habitat for endangered species) without irregular site configuration or severe topography.

Site Access

Acceptable Accessible by truck via major transportation routes, with limited access through residential areas or areas populated by other sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals); potential for minimal traffic impacts on local roadways in proximity to the site, assuming roadway improvements are made.

Land Use (Previous and Current)

Surrounding Land Use

The site is bounded to the north by the northern portion of the site and by another lot which contains two large concrete gas storage tanks (currently

Acceptable Previously developed property with unusable structures still in place, moderate potential for site contamination based on previous and/or current use. Acceptable Some presence of non-manufacturing uses surrounding the property.

61

Table 4.9-3. Comparative Evaluation of Staten Island Rossville Site (Continued)
Criteria Site Specific Information Determination

Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Zoning Nuisance Issues (e.g., noise, odor, visual impact)

Utility Availability

Potential Interconnection Availability

Property Acquisition

abandoned). The site is bounded to the east by Donjon Metal, a scrap metal yard for scrapped boats. The site is bounded to the south by Arthur Kill Road. The site is bounded to the west by property that includes a “paint ball” area, a golf driving range, and a garden supply store. There is a Lowes retail store under construction further west along Arthur Kill Road. The surrounding zoning to the north, east, and west is M3-1. To the south, there is M2-1 and C8-2 zoning. There is a State Park Preserve within one-half mile southwest of the site. There is a correctional facility within one mile northwest of the site. There are no known inconsistencies Acceptable with local planning efforts. Site development would be generally consistent with specified local planning efforts The site is zoned M2-1 and M3-1. Advantageous Site is zoned M2 or M3. On-site buffer (vegetation) currently Advantageous exists. It is possible that additional on- Moderate existing on site buffer or site buffer could be constructed. potential to construct such a buffer on site to reduce potential impacts and visibility of site development from off site. Based upon the site location, utilities Acceptable are expected to be available at the site, Utilities (water, sewer, gas, electricity) but require verification. may be available at the site, but would likely need to be upgraded to meet facility needs. The nearest utility interconnections Acceptable were not determined. Utilities mapping A gas main and transmission or substation facilities may be located was requested from the City DEP GIS within proximity to the site, but require department, but was not made verification (no analysis has been available during the time period of the performed as to the ability to study. interconnect with such facilities; a project-specific interconnection study would need to be performed at the appropriate stage of project development). The site is owned by the NYC Highly Advantageous Department of Corrections. Site is owned by the City (Dept. of Corrections), facilitating use of the site for project development.

62

Table 4.9-3. Comparative Evaluation of Staten Island Rossville Site (Continued)
Criteria Project Economics Site Specific Information The usable size of the site (approximately 8 acres) could support development of up to a 300 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility at an estimated tipping fee of approximately $70-$90 per ton or up to a 700 ton per day thermal processing facility at an estimated tipping fee of approximately $140-$150 per ton (2015 values). Determination Acceptable Site size supports development of a smaller-scale facility (up to 300-tpd for anaerobic digestion, up to 700-tpd for thermal processing). Estimated tipping fees (2015) for anaerobic digestion could be less than projected costs of $128 per ton for export and disposal; estimated tipping fees (2015) for thermal processing could be more than projected costs for export and disposal. Acceptable Considering potential project size supported by the site (i.e., smallest sizes), potential environmental benefits are expected to be the least advantageous compared to current waste transportation and disposal practices (e.g., reduced long-haul truck, rail or barge traffic; reduced greenhouse gas emissions; increased materials recovery, renewable energy generation, reduced landfilling.

Potential Environmental Benefits

The usable size of the site (approximately 8 acres) could support development of up to a 300 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility or up to a 700 ton per day thermal processing facility.

63

4.10

Staten Island – Caracci Property (Arthur Kill Rd. and Chemical Lane)

The site is located in Staten Island, along Arthur Kill Road, north and west of the intersection of Arthur Kill Road and Chemical Lane. It is made up of two lots and is rectangular in shape. The total site area is approximately 7 acres. The site is zoned M3-1. The site is privately owned (Caracci), and is reportedly available for sale for approximately $12 million. Access to the site is from Route 440, and then along local roads for less than one mile. There are commercial and mixed-use areas along the local roadways, including at the intersection of Bloomingdale and Arthur Kill Roads. This intersection is congested during peak traffic times and has poor drainage conditions. Arthur Kill Road may require upgrades for heavy truck traffic. Table 4.10-1 provides key site information. Figure 4.10-1 provides a site location map. Figure 4.10-2 provides an aerial satellite photo of the site. The topography of the site is relatively flat. The site does not contain floodplains, wetlands, or federally listed endangered species (see Appendices A, B, and C). The estimated usable site area is approximately 7 acres (i.e., the entire area). The site is currently occupied by a vehicle storage lot. Cars, buses, and boats on trailers were observed during a site visit on June 15, 2010. The site is fenced with chain link fence; portions of the site are fenced with corrugated metal fencing. The past use of the site is unknown. The site is bounded to the north by property that includes a “paint ball” recreation area, a golf driving range, and a garden supply store. The site is bounded to the east by Chemical Lane. Beyond Chemical Lane, there is vacant industrial land. The site is bounded to the south by Arthur Kill Road. There is a Lowes retail store under construction south of the site on the far side of Arthur Kill Road. The site is bounded to the west by a correctional facility.

Table 4.10-1. Staten Island – Caracci Site – Key Site Information Owner Roy A. Caracci Roy H. Caracci Total Block.Lot 7167.95 7167.72 Zoning M3-1 M2-1 M3-1 M2-1 Acres 0.57 6.40 6.97 Estimated Usable Acres 0.57 6.40 6.97

64

Figure 4.10-1. Site Location Map – Staten Island Caracci Site

Figure 4.10-2. Aerial Satellite Photo – Staten Island Caracci Site

65

The Staten Island Caracci site was evaluated via application of the second-level screening criteria listed and described in Section 2.2. A summary of the findings is presented in Table 4.10-2. The more detailed evaluation results follow, in Table 4.10-3. Table 4.10-2. Summary of Comparative Evaluation for the Staten Island Caracci Site Criteria Site Size and Configuration Site Access Land Use (Previous and Current) Surrounding Land Use Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Zoning Nuisance Issues Utility Availability Potential Interconnection Availability Property Acquisition Project Economics Potential Environmental Benefits X X X X(a) X(a) X X X X Acceptable X X X Advantageous Highly Advantageous

a. Limited information was available to complete the evaluation for this criterion. Verification is required.

66

Table 4.10-3. Comparative Evaluation of Staten Island Caracci Site
Criteria Site Size and Configuration Site Specific Information The site is made up of two lots on Arthur Kill Road. The site is located north and west of the intersection of Arthur Kill Road and Chemical Lane. The site is rectangular in shape. The topography of the site is relatively flat. The total site area is approximately 7 acres. The estimated useable site area is approximately 7 acres. The site does not contain floodplains, wetlands, or federally listed endangered species. From the nearest highway (Rte 440), access to the site is as follows: Route 440 South to Exit 3 (Bloomingdale Road). Merge onto West Service Road/Veterans Road West. Right at Bloomingdale Road. Left at Arthur Kill Road. The distance traveled on local roads is less than one mile. There is a commercial shopping area between Route 440 and the site. Note: the intersection of Veterans Road West and Bloomingdale Road is an acute right turn. This intersection is a commercial area. The intersection of Bloomingdale Road and Arthur Kill Road is congested during peak traffic times, and has poor drainage, resulting in flooding and icing. The site is currently occupied by a vehicle storage lot. Cars, buses, and boats on trailers were observed. The site is fenced with chain link fence; portions of the site are fenced with corrugated metal fencing. The past use of the site is unknown. The site is bounded to the north by property that includes a “paint ball” area, a golf driving range, and a garden supply store. The site is bounded to the east by Chemical Lane. Beyond Chemical Lane, there is vacant industrial land. The site is bounded to Determination Acceptable 6-8 acres of buildable area (i.e., excluding floodplains, wetlands, habitat for endangered species) without irregular site configuration or severe topography.

Site Access

Acceptable Accessible by truck via major transportation routes, with limited access through residential areas or areas populated by other sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals); potential for minimal traffic impacts on local roadways in proximity to the site, assuming roadway improvements are made.

Land Use (Previous and Current)

Advantageous Previously developed property with limited or no structures in place; potential for site contamination unknown.

Surrounding Land Use

Acceptable Some presence of non-manufacturing, uses surrounding the property.

67

Table 4.10-3. Comparative Evaluation of Staten Island Caracci Site (Continued)
Criteria Site Specific Information the south by Arthur Kill Road. There is a Lowes retail store under construction south of the site on the far side of Arthur Kill Road. The site is bounded to the west by a correctional facility. Surrounding Zoning: The surrounding zoning to the north, east, and west is M3-1. To the south, the zoning is M21. There is a State Park Preserve within one-half mile south of the site. There are no known inconsistencies with local planning efforts. Determination

Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Zoning Nuisance Issues (e.g., noise, odor, visual impact) Utility Availability

The site is zoned M2-1 and M3-1. The site size is relatively small. It is possible that a limited, on-site buffer could be constructed.

Based upon the site location, utilities are likely available at the site, but require verification.

Potential Interconnection Availability

The nearest utility interconnections were not determined. Utilities mapping was requested from the City DEP GIS department, but was not made available during the time period of the study.

Property Acquisition

The site is privately owned. The site is available for sale (asking price is reportedly $12 million).

Acceptable Site development would be generally consistent with specified local planning efforts Advantageous Site is zoned M2 or M3. Acceptable No or limited existing buffer on site or little potential to build on-site buffer to reduce potential impacts and visibility of site development off site. Acceptable Utilities (water, sewer, gas, electricity) may be available at the site, but would likely need to be upgraded to meet facility needs. Acceptable A gas main and transmission or substation facilities may be located within proximity to the site, but require verification (no analysis has been performed as to the ability to interconnect with such facilities; a project-specific interconnection study would need to be performed at the appropriate stage of project development). Advantageous Site is available for sale or lease, with no known restrictions or impediments that would preclude or potentially delay acquisition of the site for project development.

68

Table 4.10-3. Comparative Evaluation of Staten Island Caracci Site (Continued)
Criteria Project Economics Site Specific Information The usable size of the site (approximately 7 acres) could support development of up to a 300 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility at an estimated tipping fee of approximately $70-$90 per ton or up to a 700 ton per day thermal processing facility at an estimated tipping fee of approximately $140-$150 per ton (2015 values). Determination Acceptable Site size supports development of a smaller-scale facility (up to 300-tpd for anaerobic digestion, up to 700-tpd for thermal processing). Estimated tipping fees (2015) for anaerobic digestion could be less than projected costs of $128 per ton for export and disposal; estimated tipping fees (2015) for thermal processing could be more than projected costs for export and disposal. Acceptable Considering potential project size supported by the site (i.e., smallest sizes), potential environmental benefits are expected to be the least advantageous compared to current waste transportation and disposal practices (e.g., reduced long-haul truck, rail or barge traffic; reduced greenhouse gas emissions; increased materials recovery, renewable energy generation, reduced landfilling.

Potential Environmental Benefits

The usable size of the site (approximately 7 acres) could support development of up to a 300 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility or up to a 700 ton per day thermal processing facility.

69

5.0

SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE EVALUATION FINDINGS

As described in earlier sections of this report, nine potential sites identified and were evaluated using the comparative evaluation criteria established for the study. For each site and each criterion, a determination was made based on available information as to whether the site was "Acceptable", "Advantageous", or "Highly Advantageous" for that criterion. Weighting was not assigned to the criteria and no numerical scoring or ranking was conducted. The purpose of the comparative evaluation was to further evaluate whether there were sites available in the City that could be considered suitable for a demonstration project. Consequently, sites were grouped into categories, identified as "Not Acceptable", "Acceptable" and "Advantageous or Highly Advantageous". Table 5-1 provides an overall summary of the comparative evaluation results. A more detailed summary is provided in Table 5-2, focusing on the specific criterion for which sites were ranked advantageous or highly advantageous. A discussion of the results follows the tables. Findings are summarized in this section, as applicable, in the same order that the sites were addressed in Section 4. The order presented herein is not intended to be an indication of site suitability. Table 5-1. Overall Summary of Comparative Evaluation Results Not Acceptable(a)   Penn & Fountain Landfills/Flatlands Ave WWTP (Brooklyn)(c) Randall’s Island – FDNY Property (Manhattan) (d)      Acceptable Phelps Dodge Refinery (Queens) Bowery Bay – along 19th Ave near Riker’s Island Bridge (Queens) Con Ed Astoria Complex (Queens) Rossville Site along Arthur Kill Road (Staten Island) Caracci Site along Arthur Kill Road (Staten Island) Advantageous or Highly Advantageous(b)  Brooklyn Union Gas Company (Brooklyn)  Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility– North of Channel (Staten Island)

a. “Not Acceptable” means the site did not meet the acceptable ranking for one or more of the criteria. b. “Advantageous or Highly Advantageous” means the site ranked advantageous or highly advantageous for six (i.e., half) or more of the criteria. c. The Penn & Fountain Landfills/Flatlands Ave WWTP site did not meet the acceptable criterion for “Site Size and Configuration”, due to the presence of a significant amount of wetlands on the site.

d. The Randall’s Island – FDNY Property site did not meet the acceptable criterion for “Site Acquisition,” because the site is not available. The site currently occupied by FDNY New York City Fire Academy and is a highly utilized training facility; relocation would be a significant impediment to developing a demonstration facility.

70

Table 5-2. Detailed Summary of Comparative Evaluation Results (a)
Site Brooklyn Brooklyn Union Gas Company Acceptable Ratings (#) 6 5 Advantageous Ratings      Site Size / Configuration Land Use Nuisance Issues Project Economics Potential Environmental Benefits Highly Advantageous Ratings 1  Zoning

Penn & Fountain(b) Manhattan Randall’s Island FDNY Queens Phelps Dodge Refinery Bowery Bay near Rikers Island Bridge Con Ed Astoria Complex Staten Island Fresh Kills Landfill

(c) (d)              

7

2

Nuisance Issues Property Acquisition Nuisance Issues

3

9

1

2

Site Access Surrounding Land Use Zoning Land Use Property Acquisition Zoning

9

2

Land Use Utility Availability

1

4

3

Land Use Utility Availability Potential Interconnection Availability Zoning Nuisance Issues Land Use Zoning Property Acquisition

5

     

Site Access Surrounding Land Use Zoning Nuisance Issues Property Acquisition Property Acquisition

Rossville Site Caracci Property

9 9

2 3

    

1 0

a. Based on 12 comparative evaluation criteria. Details are listed only for the criteria that were rated advantageous or highly advantageous; criteria not listed for a site were rated "Acceptable", unless noted. b. The Penn & Fountain site did not meet the acceptable rating for Site Size and Configuration. c. Randall’s Island – FDNY site did not meet the acceptable rating for Site Acquisition.

71

As summarized in Tables 5-1 and 5-2, two sites (Penn & Fountain Landfills / Flatlands Ave WWTP and Randall’s Island – FDNY) were determined to be “Not Acceptable” because they did not meet an acceptable rating for one of the 12 criteria.  Randall’s Island – FDNY Property (Manhattan). This site is rated Advantageous or Highly Advantageous for numerous criteria. However, the site does not meet the Acceptable Criterion for Property Acquisition, because the site is not available. The site currently occupied by FDNY New York City Fire Academy and is a highly utilized training facility; relocation would be a significant impediment to developing a demonstration facility. Penn and Fountain Landfills/Flatlands Ave WWTP. This site consists of approximately 10 acres, but is largely covered in wetlands. Less than 3 acres are estimated to be outside of the area delineated as wetlands, which is significantly less than the six to eight acres recommended for project development. During a site visit, a heavy growth of reeds was observed to cover most of the site. Wetlands mapping available at the time of the site visit indicated a small area of emergent wetlands in the southern part of the site. A review of updated, digital wetlands mapping, obtained after the site visit, indicated that approximately 75% of the site is a wetland area.

As summarized in Tables 5-1 and 5-2, five of the sites are determined to be “Acceptable”, on the basis that all of the criteria were rated at least acceptable, with only a limited number of the criteria rated as advantageous or highly advantageous. The five sites determined to be “Acceptable” are the three sites in Queens (Phelps Dodge Refinery, Bowery Bay along 19th Ave near Riker’s Island Bridge, and the Con Ed Astoria Complex near 31st St. and 20th Ave.) and two of the sites in Staten Island (the Rossville Site and the Caracci Property, both along Arthur Kill Rd). Key issues related to the evaluation of these sites are as follows, with the sites presented in the ordered addressed within earlier sections of this report:  Phelps Dodge Refinery (Queens). This site is rated Highly Advantageous for zoning (M3-1), surrounding land use (all industrial/manufacturing), and site access (potential for rail and barge access). It is rated advantageous for Property Acquisition and for the ability to construct buffer to address nuisance issues (e.g., odor, noise). The site is rated Acceptable for the other seven comparative evaluation criteria. Further informational needs for this site include confirmation of utility and interconnection services, determination of site ownership and discussions with the site owners about the potential acquisition of the site, and refined project economics for site-specific circumstances. Bowery Bay along 19th Ave near Riker’s Island Bridge (Queens). This site is rated Highly Advantageous for land use (previously undeveloped property) and for property acquisition (owned by the City’s Department of Small Business Services and leased to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey). This site consists of 17 acres, with approximately 11 acres of potentially usable land. Because of the overall site size and the presence of existing, dense vegetation, the site is rated Advantageous for the ability to use/construct a buffer to address nuisance issues 72

(e.g., odor, noise). The site is rated Acceptable for the other nine comparative criteria. The site has areas of steep topography, including potential rock outcroppings and indications that parts of the site may be fill. Geotechnical studies would be needed to determine the extent of fill and the extent of bedrock on the site. In the absence of that information, the site is assumed to support development of the smallest-sized demonstration facility (e.g., up to 300 tons per day for anaerobic digestion and up to 700 tons per day for thermal processing). Other informational needs for this site include confirmation of utility and interconnection services, discussions with the City and the Port Authority about the potential use of the site, and refined project economics for site-specific circumstances.  Con Ed Astoria Complex near 31st Street and 20th Ave (Queens). This site is rated Highly Advantageous for zoning (M3-1). It is rated Advantageous for land use and utility availability, due largely to the presence of other generating facilities at the site. The site is rated Acceptable for the other nine (9) comparative evaluation criteria. The site consists of approximately five to seven acres of usable land. Further informational needs for this site include the availability of electric and gas interconnections and gas supply, discussions with the site owner (Con Ed) about the potential acquisition or use of the site, and refined project economics for site-specific circumstances. Rossville Site (Staten Island). This site is rated Highly Advantageous for site acquisition (owned by the City - Department of Correction). It is rated Advantageous for zoning (M2-1 and M3-1). Due to the presence of existing, dense vegetation, the site is rated Advantageous for the ability to use/construct a buffer to address nuisance issues (e.g., odor, noise). The site is rated Acceptable for the other nine comparative evaluation criteria. Further informational needs for this site include determination of roadway improvements that may be needed for site access, confirmation of utility and interconnection services, discussions with the site owner (Department of Correction) about the potential to use the site, and refined project economics for site-specific circumstances. Caracci Property (Staten Island). This site is rated Advantageous for land use (previously developed, no significant abandoned structures), zoning (M2-1 and M31), and property acquisition (privately owned; available for sale for approximately $12 million). The site is rated Acceptable for the other nine comparative evaluation criteria. Further informational needs for this site include determination of roadway improvements that may be needed for site access, confirmation of utility and interconnection services, discussions with the site owner (Caracci) about property acquisition, and refined project economics for site-specific circumstances.

As summarized in Tables 5-1 and 5-2, two of the sites are determined to be “Advantageous or Highly Advantageous”, on the basis that half or more of the criteria were rated as Advantageous or Highly Advantageous, with the remainder rated Acceptable. The two sites determined to be “Advantageous or Highly Advantageous” are: the Brooklyn Union Gas Company (Brooklyn), and the Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility site (Staten Island). Key 73

issues related to the evaluation of these sites are as follows, with the sites presented in the order addressed within earlier sections of this report:  Brooklyn Union Gas Company (Brooklyn). This site is rated Highly Advantageous for Zoning (M3-1). The site is rated Advantageous for site size and configuration (14 usable acres). Based on available area, the site is also rated Advantageous for the ability to construct buffer to address nuisance issues (e.g., odor, noise). The size of the site could support development of up to a 600 ton per day anaerobic digestion facility or up to an 1,100 ton per day thermal processing facility. As a result, the site is rated Advantageous for both project economics and potential environmental benefits. The site is rated Advantageous for land use, because it is a previously developed, currently unused property with no significant structures in place. The site is rated Acceptable for the other six comparative evaluation criteria. Further informational needs for this site include discussions with the site owner (Brooklyn Union Gas Company) about the potential acquisition or partnership to develop the site for a demonstration facility, confirmation of utility and interconnection services, and refined project economics for site-specific circumstances. Fresh Kills Rock Crushing Facility– North of Channel (Staten Island). This site is part of a 93-acre parcel used for waste management activities, including a municipal solid waste transfer station and a yard waste composting operation. Based on the size and compatible use of the overall property, the site is rated Highly Advantageous for zoning (M3-1), surrounding land use, and ability to address nuisance issues (e.g., odor, noise) through existing or potential future buffer. The site is rated Highly Advantageous for site access, since travel after exiting the highway is along a service road (i.e., no travel along local roadways past residential or other sensitive receptors) and because of existing rail service to the site. The site is rated Highly Advantageous for property acquisition, since it is owned by the City (Department of Sanitation). However, discussions are required with the Department of Sanitation regarding future Department plans to expand yard waste composting operations at the site. The site is rated Advantageous for land use, largely because of the benefits of co-location with other waste management activities, including the potential to use existing infrastructure. The site is rated Advantageous for utility and potential interconnection availability, due to the presence of utilities at the site for existing operations as well as the nearby location of the Arthur Kill generating station. The site is rated Acceptable for the other four comparative criterion. Further informational needs for this site include discussions with the site owner (Department of Sanitation) about the potential use of the site, and refined project economics for site-specific circumstances.

74

6.0 6.1

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions

The purpose of this siting study was to determine if suitable sites were available in the City for development of one or more conversion technology demonstration facilities. Based on siting criteria established for this purpose, nine potential sites were identified for review in four of the five boroughs of the City (Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island). Preliminary evaluation of the nine sites, conducted using readily-available public information and observations from site visits, determined that seven of the sites are potentially viable in three boroughs (Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island), with five sites considered Acceptable and two sites considered Advantageous/Highly Advantageous. These findings indicate that viable sites are available in New York City for development of a conversion technology demonstration project. 6.2 Recommendations

Based on the conclusions of the Phase 3 Siting Study, there are three key recommendations:    Conduct additional investigations for comparative analysis; Continue to search for additional sites; and Consider other activities for implementation of a demonstration facility.

These three recommendations are further addressed below. Conduct Additional Investigations for Comparative Analysis The City may wish to conduct additional investigations for the viable sites, focusing on obtaining information that was not available at the time of the study. The most important supplemental activity would be contacting the site owners to discuss site acquisition issues and to obtain approval to conduct a more thorough site walkover. In addition, documented information on the availability of utility connections and interconnections was not available for some of the sites, and could be pursued and assessed to refine the analysis. Other informational needs, as summarized in this report, could also be pursued, including additional financial and economic modeling, consideration of community concerns, and environmental conditions. Further Search for Additional Sites As noted above, viable sites were identified in three of the five boroughs. The City may wish to encourage further exploration of potential sites in each of the five boroughs. Several sites were initially identified in the Bronx, but all such sites were determined to be too small to support development of a commercial-scale demonstration facility, and, therefore, were not comparatively evaluated. One site in Manhattan, the Randall’s Island- FDNY Property, was determined to not be viable after review because it did not meet the “acceptable” criteria for site acquisition. 75

Other Considerations for Implementation of a Demonstration Facility Corresponding with the continued assessment of viable sites, several other tasks should be considered when assessing implementation plans of a demonstration project. In addition to this Siting Study, other tasks include:           Encourage broader search and solicitation for potential sites in each of the five boroughs; Define the specific demonstration project(s) (technologies, size); Investigate further the availability and quality of utilities (including water, sewer, gas and electricity); Analyze the ability of the project to interconnect with a gas main and/or the power grid, as applicable, for project-specific circumstances; Assess costs of constructing a demonstration facility, including the costs of the conversion equipment to turn recovered products into electricity and other marketable products; Identify viable facility ownership, operating models, and financing alternatives; Define the environmental regulatory process and requirements; Explore markets for recovered products; Evaluate environmental criteria for evaluating project impacts on surrounding communities; and Develop a list of implementation steps and a schedule.

At this point of potential project development, perhaps the most important implementation activity is to meet with City and State regulators. The purpose of these meetings would be to define the environmental regulatory process, including specific requirements of that process, and to identify and address any regulatory impediments.

76

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.