New Haven Independent

At Hearing, Peak Plant Plan Piques Neighbors

by Thomas MacMillan | August 5, 2009 7:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (14)

The thought of a second smokestack near her home was enough to make Edna Morales itch all over.

Morales (pictured) already has complaints about the pollution from the current smokestack at the Harbor Station power plant, in the East Shore neighborhood. Sometimes, she said, the power plant gives off smoke that makes her skin itch. Morales came out Tuesday night to oppose a plan that would expand the plant by adding three more turbines and another smokestack.

The Woodward Street resident was one of dozens of East Shore neighbors who turned out for a meeting on Tuesday evening at the Annex YMA Club with Public Services Enterprise Group (PSEG). The New Jersey-based power generation company sent up a team of staffers to meet with local residents about its plans to add more turbines to its plant at 1 Waterfront St.

The company’s representatives got an earful from neighbors like Morales. They said their air quality is bad enough without adding more potentially polluting infrastructure.

Rich Lopriore, PSEG’s president, told the crowd that his company would endeavor to not add to the current level of emissions at the plant. Tuesday night’s meeting was the first step in a process of dialogue with the local community that Lopriore said he hopes will end with all neighborhood concerns being addressed.

PSEG’s proposed expansion requires a permit from the state Department of Environmental Protection. The company plans to apply for that permit on October, begin construction in April or May of 2011, and have the new facility running by 2012. Lopriore said that all the energy generated by the new turbines would be used in Connecticut.

The proposed new turbines at Harbor Station represent PSEG’s response to a state request for more peaking plants — facilities designed to generate power during times of peak energy demand, usually hot and humid summer days.

The three new energy-efficient turbines would expand the existing plant, which was constructed in 1975. (See background article here.)

The current turbine is operated as an “RMR” (“Reliable, Must Run”) facility, which means that, similar to a peaking plant, it goes into operation only when it is needed to “stabilize the grid.” When the administrators of the state’s electrical grid foresee a need for more energy, they can call Harbor Point online. The current turbine then take 16 hours to get up and running.

The proposed new turbines, in contrast, would need only 10 minutes to get up to speed. The company predicts that the peaking turbines would be needed only about 2 percent of the time.

PSEG representatives said that it’s possible that the installation of new turbines would mean that the older, dirtier, turbine would have to operate less frequently. However, the possibility remains that there would be days when all four turbines would be needed to power the grid.

That possibility has neighbors worried, since it holds the potential for an increase in local air pollution on those days.

Neighbors gathered in a large function room at the YMA club on Tuesday night. Tables were set up with signs and leaflets detailing the history of PSEG’s environmental activities and it’s plans for the Harbor Station plant. There were platters of veggies and cheese in the back and, in the front of the room, a sign-up for an Aug. 15 bus tour of the plant.

Neighborhood Aldermen Al Paolillo and Arlene DePino, several City Hall staffers, East Rock Alderman Roland Lemar, and State Rep. Bob Megna were in attendance.

PSEG President Rich Lopriore was the first to speak. He mentioned that the company’s proposal amounted to a $140 million investment that would include 70 union jobs during construction and and add $3 million in annual tax revenue for the city.

Mark Strickland, director of fossil environmental affairs at PSEG, informed the audience that the new turbines would be “equipped with the most advanced emissions controls” and would reach the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s highest standards.

“I’ll be the direct recipient of all the pollutants you’re giving me,” said Fran Calzetta of the Forbes Avenue Commercial and Residential Association. Calzetta, who lives on Forbes Avenue, was the first of several neighbors to voice firm opposition to the proposed new turbines and the potential air pollution increase that might come with them.

Strickland assured Calzetta that PSEG would be subject to the EPA’s “very strict standards.”

“I live across the street,” said Edna Morales. She said that occasionally she hears sirens and lights then notices an increase in smoke coming from the power plant. “Right after the smoke and sirens and the lights, you get the itching on the skin,” Morales said.

The current PSEG smokestack already pollutes the neighborhood, Morales said. “Now we’re going to have two of them … Now you’re just adding to it.”

Lopriore assured Morales that he would look into the incidents she was referring to. “We need to find out what it is you saw,” he said. He promised to look at the situation and put an answer on the company’s website.

“It’s not more of the same,” he said. “You won’t see that kind of experience that you did with” the old turbine.

Fight the Hike activist Frank Panzarella spoke up. “We’re already in violation of the Clean Air Act,” he said. “What we want is not the status quo. We want to lower pollution levels.”

“On net, we see this as an environmental benefit,” Strickland replied. The new, cleaner turbines will often run instead of the older, dirtier unit, he explained.

Despite Strickland’s comments, complaints from neighbors continued. Residents also voiced concerns about security, noise, and plans to fill a new 230,000 gallon fuel tank with truck deliveries rather than straight from a tanker in the harbor.

On his way out of the building at the end of the meeting, New Haven Chief Administrative Officer Rob Smuts said that city still has some “outstanding issues” with the project. The city is working with PSEG on plans to reduce pollutants like nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulates. The city is committed to no net increase in pollution from the Harbor Station plant, said Smuts.

“Any way you measure it,” he added. He noted that an overall annual decrease in pollution can still include several days of increased pollution.

State Rep. Megna said the meeting left unanswered questions. “The key is the air permit,” he said. Harbor Station’s existing facility is up for a renewal of it’s permit from the DEP. It will have to apply for a new permit for the new turbines. “I want to see the application for the air permit,” Megna said.

“When you just add three peakers to number one, that’s got to have an effect on air quality,” he said.

“I have this weird feeling,” he said. “I’m just curious what this application is going to have on it.” Megna noted that the PSEG representatives had “downplayed” the possibility of running all four turbines at once.

Megna said that he plans to request that the DEP hold a public hearing on the issue.

Asked if the new turbines would increase pollution, Lopriore replied, “It’s not an easy question to answer.”

“We believe we can manage that,” he said. There are ways to balance the new, efficient turbines with the old one so as to not increase pollution, he explained.

Lopriore said the PSEG aims to sign a Community Benefits Agreement with the mayor. The document would likely include commitments by the company on pollution levels.

Lopriore stressed a commitment to working with the community to address all local residents’ concerns.

Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: Fred Davis | August 5, 2009 8:56 AM

A power plant that sits there burning fossil fuel is an old outdated concept. We should make them give us something better that isn't so wasteful like CHP (combined heat and power)or 'Plasma-Arc Gassification' (like they use now at that giant landfill in Ohio...zero emissions...!!). Theres no reason to put up another old-fashioned oil burning power plant this late in the game...they are wasteful (more than half the power is 'lost' as heat). New Haven should demand a modern power plant...!!

Posted by: Bruce | August 5, 2009 10:07 AM

Fred, CHP is a great idea if you can find something useful to do with the heat. This might be a challenge for a plant that that runs only 40 times a year.

Plasma Arc Gasification is an experimental technology. I think there are currently only 5 plants in the world. From what I understand it is a waste incineration process through which syngas is produced as a byproduct. The syngas can be used as fuel in a gas turbine to generate electricity, so basically this would be the same plan but with a different fuel. I don't know if there is much environmental benefit to burning this gas over methane (natural gas). Seems like there would be a lot of impurities, but I've never worked with this technology.

One option might be to simply fuel the turbines with B100 biodiesel rather than petroleum oil (the proposal considers oil as a back-up fuel). This would probably offer a modest emission reduction over petroleum, but at least it would be renewable and would help CT meet it's Renewable Portfolio Standard.

Posted by: chris | August 5, 2009 11:32 AM

My understanding is that the power from this generation plant, whether it's fueled by low sulfur diesel or natural gas, is that there is no guarantee the power will even be used locally, but that it will probably be allocated to Fairfield County.

Posted by: FairHavenResToo | August 5, 2009 12:09 PM

What is the best way to voice opposition on this? Write the DEP directly, start a petition for a public hearing, or is something else already in the works? Thanks.

Posted by: The Count | August 5, 2009 12:44 PM

And of course, without fail, everyone who came out against Tweed-New Haven Airport for "environmental" reasons, was "M.I.A." at this meeting. Where were the Michael Criscuolos, the Ron Arenas, the Kevin Butterbaughs, the Chuck Mascolas (especially the latter as his business is on Forbes Avenue) when it came to THIS issue? Is that what this is? "Environmental specialization?"
The rest of you may forget about this...but I sure won't.

Posted by: Bruce | August 5, 2009 2:09 PM

Chris, This can't be guaranteed because this is not how an electric grid works. Power plants are like streams feeding into a large pond. Actually, more like streams feeding a large network of rivers. Sometimes there are regional voltage lows due to uneven demand and transmission losses, so a plant (like this peaking plant proposal) is required to come on line and maintain the stability. In that sense, the power would remain "local" in those events. Generally, though, powerplants just feed into the grid.

Posted by: Robert Megna | August 6, 2009 6:46 AM

Powerplants such as these place massive amounts of particulites and pollutants into the air about New Haven. They clearly impact the air which causes health problems to the people of New Haven more so to small children because of the size of their lungs. In 2002 we passed a law that forced this plant to reduce their emissions of pollutants by many thousands of tons per year. We do not want to take a step back and increase pollutants.The health of the people of New Haven cant afford additional massive amounts of pollutants, now or 10 years down the road when all 4 plants have to run simultaneously to meet increases in demand.

Posted by: Fred Davis | August 6, 2009 8:54 AM

@Bruce:
Burning only Bio-deisel at the plant would be a nice gesture. Power plant exhaust is being used to feed carbon dioxide to algae farms in many locations now. The adjacent sewage treatment plant could be coverted (sewage plants have a short life expectancy anyway...they are replaced every twenty years or so). A gassification plant could use the algae as fuel or it could be refined. If we are going to let them build something more there, it should be modern engineering and make a positive contribution.

Posted by: Toni | August 6, 2009 9:49 AM

Why does New Haven have to bear the burden of the pollution and noise for the grid? Why can't this be located in , say, Madison or Fairfield??? Is it just that NH residents can't afford to tie this up in court for years with some high powered attorneys. Contact your representatives and urge them to work against this proposal, while we still can.

Posted by: Brian V | August 6, 2009 11:02 AM

Where is King John for this?
He sends Smuts to say no "NET" increase, and stays back at the castle planning how to spend the additional 3 million. What you gonna do with the $ Johnny? More raises for you cronies?

Toni-
I guess he wants to have his constituents breathe sooty air during the summer, maybe we should summer somewhere else. Like Madison or Fairfield, their air is nice and clean.

Posted by: Jeff G | August 6, 2009 11:14 AM

I attended the meeting and also had a "weird feeling" regarding the rosy optimism of Mark Strickland, PSEG's spin doctor. Strickland made a point to stress that the proposed peaker would operate "...about 2percent of the time..."

I'm interested: if PSEG is forecasting 2% usage in 2012, when the peaker is operational, what do their models forecast for 2020, 2030, or 2040? In other words, what is their long term strategy for increased demand on the power grid? I imagine a long-term scenario where the peaker becomes less viable as an emergency source of energy and begins operating at a much higher percentage than 2%, thus negating the much-touted environmental gains from its installation.

Additionally, PSEG seems conflicted with their description of the peakers. In the same meeting, they described it as both an emergency source of energy and also as a potential, temporary substitute for the "...older, dirtier, (Unit 1) turbine..."

These statements should be clarified by PSEG.

Posted by: Robert Megna | August 6, 2009 11:23 AM

PSE&G is in the business of making a profit and maximizing shareholder stock value. They actually have a legal obligation to maximize profits and shaeholder value. That takes precedent over what is right for the environment and our health. The DEP establishes standards or levels of pollutants which PSE&G must not exceed. We must make sure those standards are right given the current poor condition of the air about our city and that the application to be submitted by PSE&G is accurate and true. Thats the bottom line.

Posted by: Jeff G | August 6, 2009 3:48 PM

Robert,

If I'm not mistaken, I believe one of the PSEG speakers actually stated "...the business model comes before the environmental model..." or something to that effect. If they make the audio available, this could be verified.

In any case, the group of neighbors I was with found that to be a humorous admission on PSEG's part.

Posted by: lynne | August 6, 2009 8:50 PM

Peak power plants add pollution to our air on the days when our air quality is at its worst - long hot sunny days with no wind when peak demand is high because of air conditioning and other energy uses. Running only 2 % on our worst air days pours salt on the wound. PSEG is ordered by a grid "operator" in some distant location to fire up their engines to meet peak power demands of the grid without concern or knowledge of our air pollution levels. Adding additional pollution on days when we are already breathing unhealthy air will have very bad effects on our health. This pollution causes stunted lung growth in children, diabetes in children, premature death, cardiovascular disease, cancer, respiratory disease and asthma attacks. New Haven has a high rate of these diseases compared to other cities in CT and we have the highest hospitalization rate for asthma in the state of CT. 10 % of our children age 0-17 have asthma. We have too many polluting facilities and will never have clean air to breathe unless everyone reduces their pollution. Why are environmental justice communities preferentially selected to host these peak plants? (5 of 6 of the new approved peaking plants are in environmental justice communities that already have more than their fair share of polluting facilities). We need to speak up. I'm glad Robert Megna, state Rep from the East Shore, will help our neighborhood have a voice on this issue.

At Hearing, Peak Plant Plan Piques Neighbors

Comments

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed