January 22, 2007

Secretary Ian A. Bowles
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA Office
Holly Johnson, EOEA # 13927
100 Cambridge St., Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

Re: Comments on the Expanded Environmental Notification Form for the proposed Chelsea Peak Energy Facility, EOEA # 13927

Dear Secretary Bowles:

These are the comments of the Chelsea Green Space and Recreation Committee (Chelsea Green Space) on the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) for the proposed Chelsea Peak Energy Facility (diesel power plant). Alternatives for Community & Environment (ACE) is assisting Chelsea Green Space in submitting these comments.

These comments contain three central themes:

1. There should be an enhanced analysis of impacts and mitigation for the project, including local air pollution impacts and a health impact assessment.
2. The EENF is inadequate. It fails to: describe and analyze all aspects of the project and feasible alternatives; provide a detailed baseline in relation to which potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures can be assessed; or demonstrate that the planning and design of the project uses all feasible means to avoid potential environmental impacts.
3. The project requires both a draft and final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A single EIR should not be allowed because the potential impacts of the project call for both a draft and final EIR to allow for adequate review and comment on the project. Further, as noted throughout these comments, the EENF does not meet the requirements of 301 CMR § 11.06(8) for proceeding from it to a single EIR.

Chelsea Green Space

Chelsea Green Space, founded in 1994, is the oldest community based coalition within the Chelsea Collaborative. Its mission is to develop a constituency to protect and expand open space and improve Chelsea’s parks and environment to maximize Chelsea’s historic, environmental, recreational, and scenic resources. Since its founding, Green Space’s accomplishments have included: mobilizing thousands of people to create a vision for the redevelopment of the Chelsea waterfront; raising more than $500,000 for restoration of Chelsea waterways for environmental and recreational purposes; organizing environmental justice campaigns to eliminate health hazards and nuisances from Chelsea’s neighborhoods; obtaining agreements from developers for waterfront walkways, canoe launches, parks, and affordable housing; sponsoring the “Environmental Crew,” teens who work on environmental projects; and providing community input to state and Chelsea regulatory agencies.

Members of Chelsea Green Space live and work in Chelsea, many near the site of the proposed diesel power plant. Some have children who attend the elementary school complex across the street from the site of the proposed diesel power plant. They have determined that a diesel power plant should not be at the location proposed by the project proponent.

Environmental Justice and the residents of Chelsea

The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) Environmental Justice policy (EJ Policy) aims to ensure that high minority, non-English speaking, and low-income neighborhoods have a strong voice in environmental decision-making, receive the full protection of existing environmental rules and regulations, and have increased access to investments that will enhance their quality of life by restoring degraded natural resources, enhancing open space, and building the urban park network. In so doing, it recognizes that low income and communities of color in Massachusetts suffer a hugely disproportionate amount of environmental harm. As documented in the report, Unequal Exposure to Ecological Hazards 2005: Environmental Injustices in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by Professors Daniel Faber and Eric Krieg, environmentally hazardous sites and facilities are disproportionately located in communities of color and working class communities in Massachusetts, placing residents of those communities at substantially greater risk of exposure to environmental health hazards.

To implement the EJ Policy, EOEA has designated as environmental justice communities those neighborhoods where the median annual household income is at or below 65% of the state average, or where at least 25% of the residents are people of color, foreign born, or lack proficiency in English. Confirming the research that low income and minority communities suffer disproportionate environmental burdens, the environmental justice communities host or are near many of the state’s contaminated and abandoned hazardous waste sites and large sources of air emissions.

Every neighborhood in Chelsea is an environmental justice community -- the only city in the state so designated. More than 35,000 persons live within the City of Chelsea’s 1.8 square miles. Of this population, about half are Latino and there are sizeable numbers of whites, blacks, Asians, and refugees from countries such as Bosnia and Somalia. Within the city are 90 reported hazardous waste sites per square mile, three large oil tank farms, a tannery, many other production businesses, and a paucity of open green space. Three rivers border Chelsea: Chelsea Creek, Mill Creek, and the Island End River; but residents have little access to water for recreation. Instead, commercial property dominates the waterfront.

The EJ Policy calls for enhanced public participation and enhanced analysis of impacts and mitigation for certain projects proposed for environmental justice communities that are undergoing MEPA review. The proposed diesel power plant does not meet the criteria of the EJ Policy for enhanced public participation or analysis because the project proponent claims the plant will operate below the emissions threshold requiring a mandatory EIR for air emissions. We therefore especially appreciate that MEPA held a hearing in Chelsea, with Spanish language interpretation, concerning the project. We encourage MEPA to continue to have enhanced public participation for the project.

Public participation requires a draft EIR and a final EIR that the public can understand and to which they can respond. As discussed below, the EENF contains claims made without support or supporting documents, and statements and calculations made without explanation of the assumptions used or options chosen. Although the documents will contain technical information, including charts and calculations, and air emissions data and modeling may be complex, the documents need to provide sufficient documentation and explanation to allow for an informed response.

Enhanced analysis of the project needed

In addition to enhanced public participation, the project proponent should be required to undertake the “enhanced analysis” of impacts and mitigation set forth in paragraph 15 of the EJ Policy: analysis of multiple air impacts; data on baseline public health conditions in Chelsea; analysis of technological, site planning, and operational alternatives to reduce impacts; and proposed on-site and off-site mitigation measures to reduce multiple impacts and increase environmental benefits for the residents of Chelsea.

Such enhanced analysis can be required even though the project does not meet the technical requirements of the EJ Policy for enhanced review. The EJ Policy, in the disclaimers section, specifically notes that the Policy is not intended to create any right enforceable against EOEA or any right to judicial review concerning compliance with the EJ Policy. Thus, requirements of the Policy can be extended to a project that does not meet the strict requirements for inclusion in the Policy. Further, the scope of an EIR should extend to all aspects of a project that are likely, directly or indirectly, to cause damage to the environment, 301 CMR § 11.06(9), which by definition includes any actual or probable impairment (other that insignificant) to a natural resource, including air pollution, 301 CMR § 11.02. Such scope is authorized by the requirements for the contents of an EIR at 301 CMR § 11.07(6) and should apply to this project.

This project requires such analysis because the diesel power plant will emit air contaminants into a community that suffers statistically significant high rates of diseases that could be caused or exacerbated by those air contaminants. As shown in attachments to these comments, residents of Chelsea (and of other communities close to the project site) suffer statistically significantly higher rates of hospitalizations for asthma, asthma-related disease, stroke, heart disease, heart attack, coronary heart disease, and major cardiovascular disease than all cities and towns within route 128/95 and than the state of Massachusetts as a whole.

Such analysis is also required because Chelsea residents already suffer from unhealthy levels of diesel particulate matter in the air and the project would add to that burden. In 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) modeled estimated outdoor diesel particulate matter concentrations for all 65,000 U.S. census tracts. EPA did not sample the air in each census tract, but instead used a model that incorporated known large stationary, small area, and mobile sources of air emissions. EPA also established a reference concentration used as a health benchmark thought to be protective against chronic non-carcinogenic health effects. The reference concentration, 5 ug/m3, is based is on diesel exhaust (which includes diesel particulate matter) rather than only particulate matter. As shown on the chart below, every tract in Chelsea exceeds the reference concentration as well as the total U.S. mean and the tracts nearest the project site are among the highest in Chelsea:

U.S. mean 1.21 (ug/m3)
EPA Reference Concentration 5 (health benchmark – should not exceed)
Chelsea mean 6.27
• Census tract 1601 10
• Census tract 1602 6
• Census tract 1603 6
• Census tract 1604 5
• Census tract 1605 8
• Census tract 1606 6

As shown, diesel particulate matter in Chelsea’s air is almost five times the U.S. mean and more than 20% above than the reference concentration (to protect public health the amount should be below the reference concentration). One tract near the project site has twice the reference concentration.

The project sits across the street from the Mary C. Burke Elementary School Complex, where all elementary-age children in the Chelsea school system attend school. This is where the project proponent proposes to add up to 37 tons per year of particulate matter to the air -- assuming the facility operates no more than 1,600 total turbine hours per year (800 hours operation per year per turbine). EENF p. 59. The project proponent also concedes that add-on particulate controls are not feasible for the combustion turbines it proposes to operate and thus it cannot reduce particulate emissions with the design it is proposing to use. EENF p. 57.

Significantly, in performing the analysis for the EENF, the project proponent apparently failed to use Chelsea air quality data. It used background values based on the nearest sampling site in Greater Boston (EENF p. 62) but did not state the location of the sampling site and whether samples from that site would be representative of air quality in Chelsea, which is especially important for those pollutants, such as particulate matter, that are very localized. Instead, it compared apparently unrepresentative data to regional or statewide air quality standards. It also noted that Massachusetts is in compliance for particulate matter, without any discussion of particulate matter in Chelsea. EENF p. 55. This is a significant flaw in the EENF. The project proponent should use air data local to Chelsea for those pollutants in the plant’s emissions, such as particulate matter, that would have a local impact -- and account for the local impacts of those pollutant emissions. By failing to do so it failed to assess potential environmental impacts or to identify mitigation measures it would take.

Analysis of local impacts, taking into account local air conditions, is required by the Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Regulations, which prohibit emissions of air contaminants that alone or in combination with other air contaminants cause a condition of air pollution. 310 CMR § 7.01(1). Air pollution means the presence in the ambient air space of one or more air contaminants or combinations thereof in such concentrations and of such duration as to cause a nuisance, be injurious, or be on the basis of current information, potentially injurious to human or animal life, to vegetation, or to property, or unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property or the conduct of business. 310 CMR § 7.00. Thus, the project proponent must show the amount of emissions from the project and analyze whether those emissions, in combination with other air contaminants, would cause a nuisance, be injurious, or be on the basis of current information, potentially injurious to human or animal life, to vegetation, or to property, or unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property or the conduct of business in Chelsea and surrounding areas. It is not enough to compare the emissions to state and metropolitan area standards as the project proponent has done in the EENF.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

When we were drafting these comments, Governor Patrick signed the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cooperative effort by Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, a greenhouse gas pollutant that causes global warming. At the signing, Governor Patrick pledged to use the proceeds of the sale of emissions allowances to fund an aggressive program of energy savings for households and industry and noted that funds would be used for an aggressive program to manage peak demand for electricity. Secretary of Environmental Affairs Bowles said that “Changes in the electricity market are creating new economic incentives for large scale energy efficiency initiatives and programs that cut electricity demand on peak days – the hottest days in the summer when lots of us are using air conditioners. The Governor wants to use these incentives – along with those created by RGGI – to drive down greenhouse gas emissions, drive down electricity costs, drive up energy efficiency, and strengthen reliability of the power system.”

We understand that the EENF was written and filed before Governor Patrick’s announcement, but RGGI will reduce or eliminate the need for peaking power plants such this project. We think it is essential that the project proponent be required to describe and analyze how RGGI might affect the need for and use of the proposed diesel power plant, how the plant would participate in the RGGI emissions cap and trade program, and how the plant’s emissions might affect the need to control carbon emissions. The project proponent should also be required to analyze how fewer peaking power plants might further the goals of RGGI.

Section by Section Comments

In this portion of our comments we respond to specific sections of the EENF. We have limited comments on section 1 because much of section 1 is a summary of other portions of the EENF on which we comment.

1.1 The project proponent failed to note that the project site is across the street from the Mary C. Burke Elementary School Complex, where all elementary-age children in the Chelsea school system attend school. The school is recent construction and Chelsea has no plans to move the school. The project proponent’s failure to mention the school is a significant omission because elementary-age children are especially vulnerable to air contaminants.

The project proponent claims, in this section and elsewhere in the EENF, that the project will create a net environmental gain for the region and Chelsea because it will provide peak power now provided by other higher emitting generating units. The project proponent has provided no information to support such claim. It should be required to provide documentation to support its statement and should explain which higher emitting units will operate less often and the overall impacts on air quality regionally and in Chelsea. It should also be required to show whether any potential net environmental gain for the region might be a net environmental loss for the residents of Chelsea.

The project proponent claims that the diesel power plant will use ultra low sulfur fuel. It should be required to discuss whether there might be a shortage of the availability of such fuel and whether it would be required to operate on other fuel. Compare this to section 3.2, where it claims an inability to obtain such fuel by trucks on cold days without explaining why it can store and obtain fuel at this site but not elsewhere.

1.2 The project proponent indicates it will need a sewer use discharge permit from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), but in section 2.2 it claims that wastewater will be trucked off site, although it might connect to the sewer system. The project proponent should clarify which option it will choose. Discharging to the sewer or trucking over 200,000 gallons of industrial wastewater off site requires an analysis of impacts which would differ depending on which method of disposal is used.

The project proponent indicates it will need various local permits, including a special permit from the Chelsea Zoning Board of Appeals and site plan review, yet we understand that the project proponent has filed with the Energy Facilities Siting Board asking it to waive local requirements. The project proponent should clarify its intentions.

The project proponent should provide more information about the status of the Activity and Use Limitation and the requirements it must meet under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan.

2.1 The project proponent should be required to provide documentation for its claims of purpose and need. It should provide documentation that the plant will be used only as a peak power plant and will never be converted to constant use. The project proponent makes claims of economic benefits of the site. It should provide an economic comparison of the plant, which will have few employees, to other uses of the site, including to uses where larger numbers of employees would be employed, and to residential use.

2.2 Please see our comments on section 1.2.

3.0 The project proponent should discuss whether and when the gas transmission pipeline into the region will be upgraded and how that would affect the need for a low sulfur fuel plant as compared to a natural gas plant. It should also discuss planned upgrades to electric transmission lines and other facilities that are planned that would reduce the need for this peaking power plant. The project proponent should describe how the site complies with the criterion that the site is “sufficient distance away from densely populated, residential neighborhoods,” considering that the proposed site is within 800 feet of residential property, closer to a proposed residential development, and in a city of 1.8 square miles in which 35,000 people reside. It should describe why it adopted that criterion but not the criterion that the site be sufficient distance away from sensitive receptors such as elementary schools.

3.2 In this section the project proponent claims that it ruled out a site in Brocton because the site lacked water and a reliable nearby source of fuel because it did not want to depend on delivery of fuel by trucks, which might serve other customers during cold weather. Yet, in section 2.2 the project proponent states that there will be an onsite tank for fuel that will “provide adequate storage for anticipated plant needs.” It should explain why it could not have a tank on the Brocton site that would provide adequate storage for anticipated plant needs. It should also explain why it could not get water to the site, considering that Brocton has a municipal water system, and whether it considered supplying the plant with groundwater.

3.4 The project proponent must do an adequate no-build analysis as required by 301 CMR § 11.07(f)2. Such analysis would compare the proposed air emissions from the facility to no air emissions at the site. It should also analyze alternatives to building peaking power plants, including energy use conservation programs, time of use pricing, distributed generation, and the like that would eliminate the need for peaking power. The project proponent portrays the plant as a necessity without reviewing and analyzing the real no build alternatives that would include other measures to reduce energy demand as well as clean energy alternatives. A full no-build analysis is also necessary considering that Massachusetts is entering RGGI, as discussed earlier in these comments.

4.1.2 As we discuss above, we believe the Secretary should deny the project proponent’s request to allow a single EIR. As is shown throughout these comments, the EENF is deficient in many aspects. It does not describe and analyze all aspects of the project and all feasible alternatives, it does not provide a detailed baseline in relation to which potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures can be assessed, and it does not demonstrate that the planning and design of the project used all feasible means to avoid potential environmental impacts. Thus, it does not meet the criteria set forth in 301 CMR § 11.06(8) to allow a single EIR.

We will discuss in more detail in our comments on section 7 why the project is not a water-dependent use and thus inappropriate to be located in a Designated Port Area.

The project proponent should provide more information about what the site will actually require to comply with the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP). It is insufficient to describe how the MCP might affect the project. The project proponent must discuss the site remediation activities it will undertake and the actions required under the MCP.

4.1.3 We understand that the project proponent has filed for zoning and site plan exemptions from the DTE. It should state whether that is correct and whether it intends to pursue those exemptions.

4.2.6 We take strong exception to the project proponent’s statement that the overall intent of the EJ policy is met by the project. The overall intent of the EJ policy is to meet the definition of environmental justice set forth in the policy: that all people have a right to be protected from environmental pollution and live in and enjoy a clean and healthful environment, that environmental benefits be equitably distributed, and that there be equal protection and input into environmental decisions. The EENF does not explain how increasing air pollution in Chelsea, especially by adding up to 37 tons per year of particulate matter to Chelsea’s air (EENF p. 59), helps protect Chelsea residents from air pollution. It does not explain how the project proponent’s asking DTE to waive Chelsea zoning and site plan review requirements provides the residents of Chelsea with meaningful involvement in decision making about the project.

Perhaps most importantly, the project proponent chose a set of criteria for site location (EENF section 3.0) that virtually guaranteed that the project would be located in an EJ community. The project proponent should be required to show that its criteria for site location would yield a significant number of sites that are not in an EJ community. As noted in the EOEA EJ Policy, EOEA and its agencies and programs are precluded from deeming a site suitable where it would have a discriminatory effect on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Thus, the project cannot be allowed to proceed based on a set of site location criteria that effectively limit location of the facility to EJ communities.

5.1.2 The project proponent should be required to provide a copy of the Activity and Use Limitation for the site. In addition, we understand that the project proponent will lease, not own, the site. We think it is essential that the proposed lease be provided and available for review comment.

6.2. The EENF indicates that the majority of the site is land subject to coastal storm flowage yet there is no discussion in the EENF about whether raising the elevation of part of the site, as proposed in the EENF, will eliminate the storm flowage. If the site continues to be subject to coastal storm flowage, how will that be managed to assure that the plant and other structures are not subject to flooding? If the site will be elevated to eliminate or minimize coastal storm flowage on the site, what impact will that have on the property and surrounding properties? These issues require full discussion in a draft and final EIR.

7.2.1 We disagree that the project constitutes a water-dependent use. The project will be designed to be dependent on the adjacent property for fuel. That adjacent property is a water-dependent use. We know of no decision that designates a project a water-dependent use by piggy-backing on another site’s use. If that were allowed, any project could be a water dependent use by using shipped fuel oil. The EENF discusses advantages of using an oil pipeline to the site rather than truck deliveries of oil, but such advantages do not convert a non-water dependent use into a water-dependent use. The project proponent should be required to explore sites that are not water-dependent and where it can store an adequate amount of fuel.

9.2.2 Contrary to the claim in the EENF that the only vehicle trips to the site will be by operators of the facility, the project proponent admitted at the site visit that there would be trucks delivering ammonia and removing large volumes of wastewater. There may also be trucks delivering parts and other materials. The project proponent should be required to describe and analyze the volume of such truck traffic and its impact on local streets. For example, if the plant were to operate for 1,600 hours, most of it during peak weeks in the summer and winter, what would be the volume of truck traffic generated during those days?

10.0 As we note in our comments at pages 3-5 above, the section on air quality is seriously flawed in many aspects. It fails to describe and analyze current air quality in Chelsea and other communities near the project site and how those conditions would be affected by emissions from the plant. We are most concerned about emissions that would have a localized public health impact such as particulate matter. Further, the EENF provides emissions information on PM10 but not on PM2.5 and nano-particles even though PM2.5 and nano-particles might have a greater negative impact on public health and the environment. It is essential that the project proponent provide that information and analysis and include a health impact assessment for the communities that would be most directly affected by emissions from the project. This is especially critical considering the elevated levels of respiratory illnesses seen in Chelsea as shown in an attachment to these comments.

10.2 As we discuss on page 5 above, the Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Regulations prohibit emissions of air contaminants that alone or in combination with other air contaminants cause a condition of air pollution. 310 CMR § 7.01(1). The EENF does not discuss that regulatory requirement. The project proponent should discuss and analyze that requirement on an area-wide and local level for all pollutants that will be emitted from the power plant and propose appropriate mitigation. In that regard, we note that the project proponent has chosen a turbine system that does not accept add-on particulate controls. Section 10.3.2. Consequently, the EIR should discuss and analyze alternative systems that would allow for further reductions in particulate emissions.

10.3 Please see our comments at page 5 above about RGGI. The project proponent should discuss and analyze greenhouse gas emissions from the plant.

10.3.2 Please see our comments above on sections 10.0 and 10.2.

10.4 This section is an example of where more explanation is required for public comment, as we discuss at page 3 above.

10.4.8 Please see our comments at pages 3-5 above, especially the need for the project proponent to state where the sampling site is located and how representative that data is of actual air quality conditions in Chelsea and nearby communities.

10.4.11 and 10.4.12 The model seems to have been run based on an annual limit of 1,600 hours a year and 8 hours a day. Yet, there is no guarantee that the plant will never exceed 1,600 hours and thus the model should include an additional run based on full time operation of the plant. Of greater immediate import, there is no justification for running the model based on 8 hours per day. Even if the plant is limited to 1,600 hours per year, it will not be limited to 8 hours per day and indeed could operate 24 hours per day during peak periods. The model should include an additional run based on 24 hours per day of operation. We note with concern that it appears those runs would show total concentrations for NO2 and PM exceeding the Significant Impact Level.

10.5 There is only speculation, not assurance, that operation of the plant will reduce operation of other dirtier plants. There is no regulatory requirement that the project plant operate only if other dirtier plants are not operating. The project proponent should state whether it would accept such limitation on operation of the plant. Further, the claims of regional air emissions reductions of SO2 and NOx should be accompanied by data on other pollutants emitted by the plant and the localized impact of those emissions.

10.5.1 The claim of avoided emissions from truck deliveries of fuel is flawed in two aspects. First, it assumes that the only alternative for the site is a plant supplied with fuel by truck even though another alternative is the no-build option. The proponent should compare to the no-build alternative. Second, the project proponent ignores the air emissions impact of oil tanker ships that would supply oil for the plant. The proponent should describe the number of tanker ships required for 1,600 hours of operation per year and the emissions expected from those tanker ships.

12.0 The Chelsea Creek is a cultural resource that will be affected by the project. Chelsea Green Space has a sponsored River Revels celebrating Chelsea Creek and is part of the Chelsea Creek Restoration Partnership, which has comprehensive plans for redevelopment of the river. More information about that is available at http://www.noahcdc.org/cbe/ccrp.html. The project proponent should propose a plan to provide public access to Chelsea Creek from the site. The site perhaps can accommodate both the plant and a waterfront park with boating options.

13.0 The proposed Section 61 findings will need to be amended based on information and analyses provided in the EIR. They currently reflect the inadequacies of the EENF noted above.

Conclusion

This significant project is proposed for an environmental justice community. It requires a full MEPA review that cannot be accomplished with a single EIR, especially considering the deficiencies in the EENF. The scope of the EIR should include sufficient information and analysis of the impact of the project on air quality within Chelsea and surrounding communities and an enhanced analysis that includes a health impact analysis of locating the project in Chelsea. There should be a full alternatives analysis that analyzes alternative locations as well as alternatives for the proposed location. There should be a full analysis of whether the project will be needed and operate as proposed in the EENF based on Massachusetts’ entry into RGGI. There must be a serious review of whether the site criteria enunciated by the project proponent virtually guarantees that the proposed diesel power plant would be located in an EJ community.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,
Eugene B. Benson
Staff Attorney
gene@ace-ej.org
Counsel for the Chelsea Green Space and Recreation Committee