 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
| Get Involved |
 |
Mission Statement |
 |
Calendar of Events |
 |
Just For Fun |
| Associates | Projects | Spotlight |
DEP letter
Nat. Marine Fisheries Letter
SE Reg.Planning & Econ. Dev. Letter
Letter
to FERC Re: Weaver's Cove
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
September 20, 2004
Magalie R. Salas
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First St., N.E., Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426
RE: Weaver's Cove LNG Project
Bristol County, Massachusetts
FERC Reference Docket No. CP04-36-000
EOEA MEPA File No.13061
Dear Secretary Salas:
The Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP) has reviewed the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement / Draft Environmental Impact Statement Report
(DEIS/DEIR) for the proposed Weaver's Cove Energy (WCE) Liquefied
Natural Gas Project in Bristol County, Massachusetts. (FERC Reference
Docket No. CP04-36-000 and EOEA MEPA File #13061).
The proposed project will have substantial impact on the environment;
especially in areas of air quality, water quality, wetlands,
waterways, and dredge spoils management. It is the Department's
opinion that the DEIS/DEIR is deficient in evaluating the extent
of impacts and proposing alternatives to avoid or minimize the
likely environmental impacts, and therefore a Supplemental Draft
EIS should be required by FERC.
As proposed in the DEIS/DEIR, the project would involve the construction
of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in the City of Fall
River, and natural gas pipelines facilities in the City of Fall
River, and the towns of Somerset, Swansea and Freetown. The proposed
LNG terminal would be capable of handling LNG ships with cargo
capacities up to 145,000 cu/meters of liquid natural gas. To
accommodate the anticipated 50 to 70 ships per year, the project
proposes dredging 2.6 to 3.1 million cubic yards of sediment
from approximately 191 acres within Taunton River and Mount Hope
Bay. Proposed dredging depth would be to 37 feet below mean
lower low water (MLLW). LNG unloaded from the ships would be
stored in the proposed 200,000 cu/meter containment storage tank.
The project also proposes using various open trench techniques
to construct two 24-inch diameter natural gas pipelines totaling
6.1 miles. One of the proposed pipelines, the 3.6-mile Northern
Pipeline, would connect to the Algonquin interstate pipeline
system in Freetown. The second pipeline, the 2.5-mile Western
Pipeline, would cross the Taunton River and connect to the Algonquin
pipeline system in Swansea. Construction of two meter and regulation
stations are proposed at the end of the pipelines in Freetown
and Swansea. Both pipelines would have a design maximum pressure
of 1,440 psig.
WCE has submitted several permit applications with supporting
data and analysis affecting the regulatory matter discussed below
which are currently under review. The Department's comments on
the project are based on the DEIS/DEIR and those submissions
are set out below. As additional data is submitted, the Department
may revise or supplement this comments.
AIR QUALITY:
General Conformity Determination -
The WCE LNG project
triggers the need for a General Conformity finding by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). A General Conformity determination
is required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for federal actions
other than transportation actions. (Transportation actions,
such as the approval of federally funded transportation plans,
programs, and projects are covered by the Transportation Conformity
requirements of the Clean Air Act.)
The requirements for General Conformity are contained in section 176(c)(1) of the CAA and in the General Conformity regulations promulgated by EPA in 1993 (40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W, and 40 CFR Part 93). In general, federal actions must support the goals of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and be shown to not:
ß Cause or contribute
to new violations of any national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQs) in any area;
ß Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation
of any NAAQs; or
ß Delay timely attainment of any NAAQs or interim emission
reductions.
The General Conformity regulations apply to nonattainment areas where the estimated emissions from the action meet or exceed specified emission rates for each NAAQ. Eastern Massachusetts is currently classified as a serious nonattainment area for the one-hour ozone standard and, therefore, the following emission rates contained in the General Conformity regulations apply to the proposed WCE project:
(Footnote: As part of the 8-hour designation rule EPA amended 40 CFR 50.9 (National 1-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone) to provide that the one hour ozone standard will no longer apply to an area one year after designation of that area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 Fed. Reg. 23951, 23996 (April 30, 2004). For most areas, including all of Massachusetts, that date is June 15, 2005. Eastern Massachusetts was classified in April 2004 as a nonattainment area of the 8-hour ozone standard and will need to further reduce emissions to attain this standard by 2010.)
ß Ozone (volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) 50 tons/year
In summary, the criteria for determining conformity for ozone nonattainment areas are as follows (See, 40 CFR Part 51.858):
ß The total of the direct
and indirect emissions from the project are included in the SIP;
ß The total of the direct and indirect emissions from the
project are fully offset within the same nonattainment area through
revision to the SIP or a similarly enforceable measure that affects
emission reductions so that there is no net increase in emissions
of that pollutant;
ß The state air agency makes a determination that the total
of the direct and indirect emissions from the project would not
exceed the emission budgets in the SIP; or
ß The state air agency makes a commitment to a SIP revision
to achieve the necessary reductions prior to the federal action.
Air Emissions Inventory for
Weaver's Cove -
Appendix H of the DEIS/DEIR includes an emissions inventory for
the WCE project and estimates that projected direct and indirect
emissions will exceed the emission threshold for NOx and will,
therefore, trigger the need for a General Conformity determination
for this pollutant. (The project would generate up to 74.9 tons
per year of NOx exceeding the 50-ton/year-review threshold.)
It should be noted that the project is estimated to generate
14.0 tons/year of VOC, which is well below the 50-ton/year-review
threshold for this pollutant.
The direct emissions are estimated to be generated from heaters, fire pumps, and emergency generators and total 33.4 tons/year of NOx. The indirect emissions will be generated from LNG trucks, ships, and tugs and total 41.5 tons/year of NOx.
Comments on the Preliminary
General Conformity Determination -
The Preliminary General Conformity Determination for the WCE
project indicates that the criteria that must be met to demonstrate
conformity are either: 1) to demonstrate that the emissions would
be offset by other emission reduction measures; or 2) to demonstrate
that the emissions from the project do not exceed the emission
budgets in the SIP for eastern Massachusetts. DEP agrees that
these are the criteria that must be met for a positive conformity
determination by FERC. However, the preliminary determination
does not meet either of these criteria.
The analysis includes a comparison of the WCE project to the eastern Massachusetts 2007 NOx budget and concludes that the emissions from construction and mining equipment are not "regionally significant" and, therefore will not cause a new violation, increase the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely attainment of the one-hour ozone standard. For commercial marine vessels, the analysis indicates that the emissions could be up to 10.5% of the marine vessel emissions for eastern Massachusetts and these emissions would be "regionally significant." The analysis then relies on dispersion analysis from the FERC application and concludes that the marine vessels would not cause a new violation of the NO2 standard. In addition, this analysis concludes that the marine vessel emissions are relatively small compared to the eastern Massachusetts budget and will not cause a new violation, increase the severity of an existing violation, nor delay timely attainment of the one-hour ozone standard.
The preliminary conformity determination for the WCE project does not meet the requirements of the EPA's General Conformity regulations for ozone nonattainment areas because the criteria for determining conformity have not been met. First, the project's emissions are not included in the SIP. Second, the direct and indirect emissions are not offset. Finally, DEP has neither made a determination that the emission budget will not be exceeded nor made a commitment to a SIP revision. The reliance on a "regionally significance" test and a modeling analysis is incorrect and only appropriate for carbon monoxide and PM-10 nonattainment areas.
Need for Further Analysis and
Mitigation -
To meet the requirements of the General Conformity regulations,
the preliminary determination must be revised. Because the emissions
from the project are not included in the SIP for eastern Massachusetts,
the analysis should explore mitigation measures to offset the
NOx emissions from the project. Eastern Massachusetts is currently
in nonattainment of the one-hour ozone standard and was classified
as a moderate eight-hour ozone nonattainment area in April of
2004. DEP expects additional emission reductions will be needed
to meet the eight-hour ozone standard by the 2010 attainment
year deadline. Future FERC/MEPA filings for this project should
include a detailed discussion of ways to mitigate the impact
of this project since the SIP cannot accommodate increases in
NOx emissions and expect to demonstrate attainment of the public
health standard.
Air Quality Permits
A Non-Major Comprehensive Plan (NMCP) Approval, 310 CMR 7.02(5),
is required for the proposed shop fabricated natural gas fired
hot water/glycol heaters that will provide heat to vaporize LNG
for pipeline transmission. A Non-Major Comprehensive Plan Application
(NMCPA) has been submitted to the Department and is currently
under review. Both the DEIS/DEIR and the NMCPA indicate that
the hot water/glycol heaters will be equipped with Ultra-Low
NOx Burners (ULNB), which represents Best Available Control Technology
(BACT), and the LNG Terminal will be a minor source of air contaminant
emissions as defined by EPA and DEP.
As part of the NMCPA, the WCE project proponents have provided a comprehensive Top-Down BACT analysis for the water/glycol heaters. The use of ULNB in lieu of Low NOx Burners (LNB), as proposed in the original design and the Environmental Notification Form (ENF), will result in substantial NOx emission reductions (9 ppmvd@3%O2 versus 15 ppmvd@3%O2). Furthermore, ULNB equipment does provide for beneficial pollution prevention (P2) in the design versus LNB with selective catalytic reduction (SCR). NOx emissions for the LNB with SCR versus ULNB would be approximately 3.1 lb/hr less but it would result in approximately a 5.6 lb/hr increase of NH3 and other criteria air contaminants. Although the Department has not completed its review of the NMCPA and a final BACT decision has not been made, it appears the DEIS/DEIR sufficiently addresses this matter.
The DEIS/DEIR provides information in Table 4.11.1-7 Potential Air Quality Impacts from Operation of the Proposed LNG Terminal on the ambient air quality impacts from the operation of the LNG Terminal (LNG ships, tugs, water/glycol heaters, emergency generator and diesel fire pumps). The ambient air quality impacts, with inclusion of monitored background, predict that the Massachusetts and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) will not be exceeded. The PM10 data indicates that the air quality impact, with monitored background included, relative to the NAAQS PM10 24-hour averaging period and annual average period will be respectively 95.3% and 76.0% of the NAAQS. The PM10 24-hour average total predicted impact is 143.0 ug/m3 in comparison to the 150 ug/m3 NAAQS. Furthermore, air quality dispersion modeling contained in the DEIS/DEIR and the NMCPA reveals that the PM10 24-hour average ambient impacts from operation of the LNG Terminal are primarily due to the design of the water/glycol heaters which contribute 45 ug/m3; all other equipment including LNG ships, tugs and trucks contribute 7 ug/m3.
In consideration that air quality modeling was "refined modeling" and the predictive nature of modeling, alternative water/glycol heater designs should be evaluated in future FERC/MEPA filings to reduce the PM10 ground level impacts. Design changes such as, reducing PM10 emission rates; increasing stack heights; combining stacks into a multi-flue stack; increasing stack gas exit temperature; increasing stack gas exit velocity; or other means to reduce the PM10 ground level impacts need to be evaluated and one or more incorporated into the water/glycol heater equipment design. The Department will require that design modifications of water/glycol heaters to reduce PM10 ground level impacts also be addressed in the NMCPA.
Neither the DEIS/DEIR nor NMCPA provides information concerning how odorant storage, pipeline odorant injection, spent odorant storage containers, etc. will be designed and managed to prevent the occurrence of a condition of air pollution due to the release of odorant to the ambient air. Future FERC/MEPA filings should include a detailed discussion of these issues. The Department also will require that this matter be addressed in the NMCPA. It is anticipated that the design will be based on the use of cylinders hard piped to the injection location to minimize any release to the ambient air.
Estimated sound impacts from the proposed LNG Terminal operation will result in less than a 2.0 dBA impact above background and are well within the Department's Noise Policy DAQC 90-001. The Department recommends that some activities that would occur during the on-site construction phase and generate elevated sound levels at off-site receptors, such as pile driving, should be limited to day-light hours Monday through Friday and no holidays.
DEIS Recommend Mitigation
-
The Department concurs with the proposed mitigation and planning
measures numbers 27-30 at 5-19 of the report regarding reductions
in transportation and construction related emissions through
low sulfur fuels and diesel retrofits and nuisance odor and noise
abatement and response plans.
WETLANDS:
As currently proposed,
the construction of the LNG terminal within the Fall River Designated
Port Area (DPA) will involve the filling of approximately 1,800
square feet of salt marsh and the replacement of approximately
4,000 linear feet of coastal dune with a riprap revetment. The
preamble for the section of the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations
that pertains to Designated Port Areas (310 CMR 10.26(1)) states
salt marshes, coastal dunes"are not likely to be significant
to marine fisheries, storm damage prevention or flood control."
The provision does not reference other the wetland interests
protected by the regulations to which these resources may contribute.
(See, 310 CMR 10.01(2)).
The DEIS/DEIR provides only cursory information about the project's impact on the coastal dune. The report also provides information that concludes the salt marshes in this DPA are functioning in a manner to contribute to the protection of marine fisheries, storm damage prevention and flood control, as well as ground water supply, prevention of pollution and protection of wildlife habitat. For example, page 4-61 of Section 4.4 of the DEIS/DEIR states that WCE conducted a functional assessment of the salt marsh areas to be eradicated by the proposed construction of the LNG terminal. The assessment, based on The Highway Methodology Workbook (COE, 1993), states that the salt marshes provide groundwater recharge/discharge, fish and shellfish habitat, sediment/toxicant retention, nutrient removal, production export, sediment/shoreline stabilization, and wildlife habitat functions. Section 3.4 of the DEIS/DEIR states that an alternative configuration that avoids impacts to salt marsh is possible but contends that the alternative site layout is not a reasonable alternative to the proposed design. The reasons given for not recommending the alternative layout included higher costs for design and construction, and security concerns.
The wetland regulations provide a very high degree of protection to salt marshes and coastal dunes against any alteration or adverse impacts from construction related activities. The regulations also give different regulatory status to activities in resource areas within DPAs. The Department will take into consideration that the proposed alterations associated with this project are being conducted in a DPA in its evaluation of the regulatory approvals that may be required to implement the final project proposal. However, the information provided in the DEIS/DEIR is insufficient for the Department to evaluate the nature and extent of the potential impact of the current proposal on these resources and their respective contribution to protected interests. This information should be provided in supplemental FERC/MEPA submissions as well as additional information evaluating and comparing the construction alternatives that could avoid or mitigate impacts. This information will also relevant to Water Quality Certification review. DEP also supports the recommendations stated in Section 5.2 (numbers 20 and 21) regarding the submission of wetlands mitigation and monitoring plans.
With respect to the alteration of the 0.21 acres of wetland impact at flag series 3, the Department agrees with the FERC recommendation in the DEIS/DEIR that the proposed administration building and associated parking lot be redesigned to avoid the wetland impact.
Finally, it is noted in the DEIS/DEIR that hydrostatic testing of the LNG storage tank will require the withdrawal of 32 million gallons of water from either a municipal source or directly from the Taunton River. An additional 760,000 gallons of water from a municipal source or the Taunton River will be required to hydrostatically test the two proposed pipelines. The proposed hydrostatic testing activities will likely require the need for a Water Management Act Withdrawal Permit (310 CMR 36.00) from DEP, as well as a filing for a NPDES Permit from EPA and DEP. Future FERC/MEPA filings should discuss further details of this activity, including the location of possible withdrawal and discharge points being considered by the project proponent.
WATERWAYS:
Several aspects of
the project will require a Chapter 91 License/Permit from the
DEP Waterways Program. The project proponent is advised that
a Chapter 91 License requires approval from the City's Planning
Board and Zoning Board prior to a License being issued. In reviewing
the DEIS/DEIR for waterways issues, it was noted the DEIS/DEIR
does not incorporate any of the detailed plans showing the dredge
footprint or profiles of the cut and final depths. Similarly,
detailed plans of the LNG facility, pier, revetment, boat ramp,
fill and shore side structures as well as the pipeline have not
been included in the document. Further, the proposed "Safety
Exclusion Zone" is 2 miles ahead and 1 mile astern while
a fully loaded vessel is in route to the facility, yet the proposal
does not include a "Safety Zone" while the vessel is
off-loading. Future FERC/MEPA filings should discuss anticipated
safe distances for vessels, either commercial or recreational,
while the LNG is off-loading product. Also, future FERC/MEPA
filings for this project should describe whether there would
be an "exclusion zone" proposed around the facility
itself and, if so, the anticipated dimensions of that zone.
The discussion also should address whether in the course of off-loading,
the active channel will be closed to any and all vessels, and
if so, what would be the duration of closure.
In addition to the pipeline crossing the Taunton River, the DEIS/DEIR
shows that the pipelines from the proposed LNG terminal would
cross ten streams. Future FERC/MEPA filings should discuss whether
any of the streams are navigable, and, if so, by what types of
vessels and what would be the expected navigational impacts during
construction and post-construction. If a stream is determined
to be navigable the pipe crossing will be subject to Chapter
91 jurisdiction and an appropriate license will be required.
In accordance with the Waterways Regulations, 310 CMR 9.02, where a gas pipeline crosses over or under water and connects existing or new infrastructure facilities located on the opposite banks of the waterway, it is considered an infrastructure crossing facility. As described in the DEIS/DEIR, the pipelines from the LNG terminal to the existing gas pipeline distribution systems would constitute an infrastructure crossing facility where the pipes cross waterways subject to Chapter 91 jurisdiction, including the Taunton River and such other streams that meet the criteria at 310 CMR 9.04. The regulations at 310 CMR 9.12(2)(d) provide that the Department shall find an infrastructure crossing facility to be non-water dependent unless the Secretary of the Environment finds that the facility cannot be otherwise located based upon a comprehensive alternatives analysis. In the event that the Secretary does not reach such a finding for any portion of the pipeline, it would be subject to the provisions at 310 CMR 9.55 which requires compensation and/or mitigation to ensure that all feasible measures are taken to avoid or minimize detriments to the water-related interests of the public.
The alternatives to cut and cover (open trenching) for the proposed pipeline under the Taunton River only explored horizontal directional drilling (HDD). There are other technologies that should be considered in future FERC/MEPA filings for this project including plowing, jetting, and water-to-water or water-to-land HDD.
It is noted in the DEIS/DEIR that open buckets will generally be used for the dredging operation. However, due to the fine sediments and the potential for re-suspension of dredged material in many areas, the use of an environmental bucket and/or other mitigation measures should be considered. A detailed discussion of this issue, as well as a general discussion of an environmental monitor and testing plan for the dredging operation, should be included in future FERC/MEPA filings for this project. DEP also supports the recommendation in the DEIS/DEIR report number 22 regarding the submission of mitigation measures for winter flounder.
The Department questions whether there will be a need to supplement city water with the water from the Taunton River for the proposed on-site fire suppressant system. If so, plans should be included in future FERC/MEPA filings showing the location of any intake pipe.
The project proponent also is advised that pursuant to 310 CMR 9.05(3)(m), demolition of existing licensed structures requires written approval by the Department and must be obtained prior to demolition.
UPLAND MANAGEMENT OF DREDGE
SPOILS:
The WCE project proposes
to manage between 2.6-3.1 million cubic yards of dredged spoils
from the Taunton River by mixing the sediment with Portland cement
and placing it on the project site for the purpose of raising
the site's grade up to 100 feet above mean sea level, constructing
a LNG containment berm, and building a landform as a visual barrier.
The site is a listed contaminated site under M.G.L. c. 21E and
is being regulated under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan,
310 CMR 40.0000 (Former Shell Terminal Release Tracking
No. 4-0749). A comprehensive response action consisting of
a recovery system designed to prevent Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
(NAPL) from migrating into the river and ultimately to facilitate
NAPL recovery is currently being operated at the site.
This proposed management of
dredge spoils raises three major issues:
1. Potential impact of the placement of large volumes of material
on current and future remedial response actions.
2. Compliance with the MCP in regard to limitations on the disposal
or reuse of contaminated material at an MCP site.
3. Demonstrating that the volume of sediment proposed to be reused
is necessary to accomplish essential site design, construction
or operational objectives.
Potential Impact on Current
Remediation and Site Conditions:
A comprehensive response action consisting of a recovery system
designed to prevent Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) from migrating
into the river and ultimately to facilitate NAPL recovery is
currently being operated at the site. Based on information submitted
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the dredge processing area
is proposed to be located over the area of recovery wells and
monitoring wells associated with the NAPL recovery system. It
is estimated that the sediment processing will take as many as
three years to complete, operating up to 24-hours per day. Pursuant
to 310 CMR 40.0021, no person shall tamper with, alter, destroy,
disturb or otherwise unlawfully interfere with any response action,
including but not limited to, any recovery or control mechanism
or system, or any monitoring device required pursuant to M.G.L.
c. 21E and 310 CMR 40.0000. Therefore, a detailed plan should
be included in future FERC/MEPA filings that identifies the procedures
to ensure that the project does not interfere with the existing
recovery system or that identifies alternative remedial approaches
designed to achieve a Response Action Outcome pursuant to the
310 CMR 40.0000.
The existing timber bulkhead is proposed to be replaced with steel, inter-locking sheet piling. Currently, a timber bulkhead located along the northwest shoreline, combined with the NAPL recovery system, appears to be preventing the NAPL from discharging into the river. As part of the project, this timber bulkhead is to be removed and replaced with steel, interlocking sheet piles. If any activity conducted during the replacement of the bulkhead results in a release of NAPL to the river, or any other release, the person conducting that activity may be liable for response actions and other damages pursuant to M.G.L. c. 21E, Section 5. The proponent should include a detailed plan in future FERC/MEPA filings for this project that identifies the procedures that will be established to prevent the discharge of NAPL to the river during the replacement of the bulkhead.
In addition, the sheet piling is proposed to be driven significantly deeper than the existing timber bulkhead. The increased depth of the bulkhead may alter the groundwater elevation and flow direction. Further, the placement of the 2.5 million cubic yards of sediment and Portland cement is likely to change the permeability of the ground surface, which could also result in a change of groundwater elevation and flow direction. The changes in groundwater elevation may trap NAPL below the water table, interfering with NAPL recovery and the change in groundwater flow direction may result in a change in NAPL migration. The proponent must demonstrate that the deeper bulkhead and low-permeable material will not alter groundwater flow and the elevation of the water table in such a way as to alter the migration or the recovery of the NAPL, or develop a plan for an alternative remedial approach designed to achieve a Response Action Outcome pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0000. A groundwater flow model should be included in future FERC/MEPA filings that depicts current conditions and changes resulting from the replacement of the bulkhead and placement of the Portland cement/sediment mixture.
If the replacement of the bulkhead or placement of the Portland cement/sediment mixture results in a change of groundwater elevation or flow, the person responsible for the resulting changes to site conditions may be liable for response actions and other damages pursuant to M.G.L. c. 21E, Section 5. The DEP requests FERC also include this in their Findings. The project proponent also should discuss in future FERC/MEPA filings the financial assurance measures that will be in place to ensure the performance of the response actions in the event implementation of the project results in a release or disruption of on-going remedial actions.
On page 4-30 of the DEIS/DEIR the applicant states the placement and reuse of the dredge at the site could improve the current site conditions by effectively isolating any soil with high lead concentrations and LNAPL. Future FERC/MEPA filings should identify the volume of dredge material necessary, with calculations, to isolate the soil hotspots.
The MCP Release Tracking Number (RTN) 4-12535 is identified on the Plan of Land, Assessor's Map X-3, Portion of Lot 11, North Main Street, Fall River, which is in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. No other disposal sites were listed in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. The WCE project proponent is advised that, if oil and/or hazardous material are identified during the implementation of this project that requires notification, notification pursuant to the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (310 CMR 40.0000) must be made to the Department. A Licensed Site Professional (LSP) may be retained to determine if notification is required and, if need be, to render appropriate opinions. The LSP may evaluate whether risk reduction measures are necessary or prudent if contamination is present.
Reuse of Contaminated Media
in Compliance with the MCP:
WCE, as part of the process to obtain state and federal approval
for navigational dredging, conducted a sediment sampling program.
In addition, the Massachusetts Office of Coast Zone Management
(CZM) collected additional samples. Based on 47 composite core
samples collected by CZM and WCE, the sediment has been determined
to be impacted by oil and/or hazardous material, such as, but
not limited to, metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). The proposed placement of
this contaminated sediment on the site must comply with the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan (310 CMR 40.0000), including without limitation
the provisions at 310 CMR 40.0030, Management Procedures for
Remediation Waste. Before approving the sediments reuse, the
provision at 310 CMR 40.0032 requires, in part, that the Department
evaluate the types and extent of contamination within the sediment
in comparison with the site's contaminant profile in order to
prevent the occurrence of a release condition at the site that
would require remediation or significantly increase contamination
at the site. There is currently insufficient information to determine
compliance with these provisions of the MCP. This should be addressed
in future FERC/MEPA filings for this project.
The Department is concerned that the amount of samples collected may not provide sufficient data to adequately characterize the nature and source of contaminants in the sediment. The Department does not concur with the conclusions in the DEIS/DEIR that the sediment was comprehensively sampled or its evaluation of the significance of the concentrations of PAHs and metals in relation to MCP compliance for reuse of contaminated media. The project proponent should prepare a Conceptual Site Model demonstrating that a sufficient understanding of sediment deposition and potential sources of contamination exists to justify the sediment sampling conducted to-date. If the Conceptual Site Model cannot be used to justify the sampling, a sampling plan should be prepared to fill data gaps identified by the Conceptual Site Model. The Conceptual Site Model, and if necessary the sampling plan, should be included in future FERC/MEPA filings for this project.
As part of the proposed re-use of the dredged sediment, WCE proposes to stabilize the sediment with Portland cement. Changing the general chemistry of the sediment by adding Portland cement (resulting in a change of pH) may change the leaching characteristics of some of the contaminants contained in the sediment. The proponent must demonstrate that the leaching characteristics are not altered by the addition of the Portland cement by conducting Toxicity Characteristic Leachability Procedure (TCLP) testing on a sufficient number of test samples. The results of the TCLE testing should be included in future FERC/MEPA filings for this project
The soil sampling conducted at the project site as part of its MCP assessment did not include a number of contaminants identified in the sediment through the sampling. Prior to the Department making a final determination on the reuse proposal, the project proponent will be required to submit additional data to establish the extent and level of contaminants at site corresponding with the sediment's contaminants. This data should be included in future FERC/MEPA filings for this project.
Demonstration of Reuse Need
Upland reuse of dredged sediments is regulated under the provisions
of 314 CMR 9.00 (Water Quality Certification). In order to be
considered a valid reuse proposal, the proponent must demonstrate
that the purposes for which the material is being reused are
reasonable and consistent with the project's design, construction
and operation, and that the volume of material proposed to be
reused is the minimum amount necessary to accomplish those purposes.
Sediment volume that exceeds those criteria will be considered
solid waste, if proposed to be disposed upland, and will be subject
to management pursuant to M.G.L. c. 111, s.150A and 150A1/2 and
310 CMR 16.00 and 19.000. The analysis in the DEIS/DEIR provides
some information on how the sediment will be reused and states
that the site is large enough to contain the total amount dredge/cement
mix. Detailed information should be provided in future FERC/MEPA
filings that demonstrate that those site grading and landform
purposes are reasonable and consistent with the project's design
and that the volume of sediment being allocated to each of proposed
reuse purposes is necessary to accomplish its function. For example,
the demonstration should discuss how the dimensions and volume
of the berms correspond with federal safety standards, or other
regulatory or engineering standards and whether there are alternative
grading designs that would accomplish the project's needs with
less sediment. The discussion should include an analysis of the
physical properties of the stabilized dredge in relation to dimensions
of the berms and landforms. DEP also supports the recommendation
noted in the DEIS/DEIR report Section 5.2 (number 12) regarding
the submission of site elevations, representative cross sections
and the corresponding fill calculations.
Alternatives Analysis
The DEIS/DEIR recommends that the project proponent provide a
revised sediment placement plan if it is unable to verify the
consistency of the proposed plan with the MCP. Since consistency
of the proposed reuse plan with the MCP has not been established
and the volume of permittable sediment reuse has not been demonstrated,
additional information on the alternatives to on-site upland
management should be fully evaluated. Because of the significant
potential environmental and project impacts of alternative scenarios
to manage this large a volume of contaminated sediment, future
FERC/MEPA filings should include a more detailed evaluation of
the alternatives.
The DEP appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed project. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
John Felix
Deputy Associate Commissioner
cc: Secretary Ellen Roy Herzfelder,
EOEA
Commissioner David O'Connor, Division of Energy Resources
Tim Timmerman, EPA New England, Region 1
Vincent Malkoski, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
Mayor Edward Lambert, City of Fall River
Brian Valiton, US Army Corps of Engineers
Chris Boelke, National Marine Fisheries Service
David Janik, Massachusetts CZM