brayton point coal plant...brayton point coal plant 3 the coal cycle i n order to create electric...

Photo: © David Cleaveland, Maine Imaging

Brayton Point Coal Plant

O p e r at i n g at Our e x p e n s e

Coal Free Massachusetts

A u g u s t 2 0 1 3

2 C o a l F r e e M a s s a C h u s e t t s

OverviewWhat is the real cost of coal-fired power, and who pays?

Brayton Point Station in Somerset, Massachusetts, is an electricity generation plant that burns coal as its primary fuel. In addition to power generation, the process of burn-

ing coal creates pollution byproducts—secondary, unintended outcomes of the coal combustion. These byproducts include harmful pollutants such as mercury, lead, carbon dioxide, smog- and soot-forming sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. These emissions damage human and animal health, disturb the integrity of our environment, and harm other industries that rely heavily on natural resources, such as fishing and agricultural production.

The toll on human health from burning coal for electricity is significant, calculable, and ultimately preventable. Individuals and families have to pay for the care of doctors, hospitals, and medication to help treat their illnesses or conditions that are either caused or made worse by coal plant pollution. They are burdened with a cost that is an unrecognized and unpaid expense created by burning coal for electricity. This report, Brayton Point Coal Plant: Operating At Our Expense, reveals the enormous costs to society of burning coal at Brayton Point power plant.

The results are significant. For 2012 emissions alone, the costs to individuals, families and society are estimated at between $120.5 million and $294.5 million. Projections for similar healthcare and mortality related costs for the next ten years range between $1.2 billion and $6.3 billion. These costs to society are too great. Our communities can transition beyond this threat to our health and prosperity, and pursue greater economic development opportunities by reducing coal plant pollution.

The toll on human health from burning coal for electricity is significant, calculable, and ultimately preventable.

Cover photo: © David Cleaveland, Maine Imaging

© iStockphoto

B r ay t o n P o i n t C o a l P l a n t 3

The Coal Cycle

In order to create electric power from coal, the solid fossil fuel is extracted from the earth, shipped to a plant, pulverized to a fine powder, and then fed into a fire that heats water to create steam. The high pressure of the steam is used to turn large turbine blades that are con-

nected to the shaft of a generator, where magnets spin within wire coils to produce electricity.1

Coal burned to make electricity creates pollution, environmental destruction, and public health problems in all phases of the process—not just when burned.

Front End Impacts Where coal is mined, communities and workers face dangerous work sites and conditions, destruction of their mountaintops and hazards to streams and rivers. Debris from the mining operation often pollutes their waterways.

Back End ImpactsAs the coal is burned, the byproducts produced include ash—known as coal fly ash—as well as gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and soot. Coal fly ash is a toxic product, laden with heavy metals and other contaminants. Right here in Massachusetts, coal fly ash from a landfill flowed unnoticed for years into Wenham Lake, a drinking water supply reservoir serving over 50,000 residents.2 This incident put many thousands of people at risk of drinking water contaminated with arsenic and other toxic chemicals. Additionally, wastewater from coal plants often isn’t carefully regulated to remove metals and toxic pollutants from water used to wash down air filters and scrubbers, which means that captured air pollution makes its way into our waterways instead.

Coal

River

Boiler Steam

TurbineTransmissionLines

Condenser Transformer

Coal Shipment

Cooling Towers

Condenser Cooling Water Illustration: © NonprofitDesign.com


Source: EPA and ISO-NE data

Capacity Factor describes how much power

was generated at the plant versus the amount

that it was possible to generate if the plant

were at full operation.

About Brayton Point Coal Plant

Brayton Point is a 1,527-megawatt fossil fuel plant located in Somerset, Massachusetts, on 306 acres of land at the head of Narragansett Bay.3 Three of its four generators burn coal to create steam-electric power, and electricity generated at the plant is sold4 to the

wholesale power market for New England. Brayton Point began commercial operation in 1963, and has been owned since 2005 by Dominion—one of the world’s largest producers and trans-porters of energy. The plant is currently being sold to Energy Capital Partners—a private equity firm based in New Jersey and California, pending approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

Brayton Point’s coal supplies are shipped in by boat through Mt. Hope Bay to the mouth of the Taunton River for delivery to the facility. In 2011, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, approximately 60% of coal delivered to Brayton Point—1.2 million tons—came from West Virginia, and the remaining amount came from Colombia.5

In many recent years, Brayton Point Station has been the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution in Massachusetts. For 2012, it was the second largest emitter, even at historically low operating rates.6 While the plant can generate enough electricity to power about 1.5 million homes per year,7 actual operations in recent years have plummeted to less than 15% of this capacity.8 See the figure below depicting the sharp decrease in recent operating capacity at the plant.9 Since 1995, the number of employees at the plant has declined from 320, according to a report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),10 to approximately 190, according to outgoing owners,

Dominion. In 2009, Massachusetts coal-fired power plants emitted 8.7 million tons of CO2, almost 50% of the total emissions11 from the electric sector in Massachusetts, despite providing only 23% of the electricity.12

Somerset, Massachusetts, host town to Brayton Point, is a suburban community of approxi-mately 18,000 residents. It is situated on Mt. Hope Bay and the Taunton River, approxi-mately 44 miles south of Boston, and 20 miles southeast of Providence, Rhode Island.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

02005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

PE

rC

EN

t

Brayton PointA N N u A l C A PA C I t y FA C t O r


Pollution & Health Effects

The types of pollution emitted by burning coal are harmful to both human health and the environment. Brayton Point emits substances such as neurotoxins,

known carcinogens and air pollutants that are hazardous to respiratory, circulatory and cardiovascular health. Some of the pollutants are familiar substances like arsenic, lead, manganese, and mercury. Others include sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Nitrogen oxides also contribute to the formation of ground-levelozone, a significant health threat in Bristol County.

New Englanders have significantly higher asthma rates than the rest of the country. Nearly 15% of adults and 14% of children living in New England have asthma. This represents about 2.1 million people in our relatively small region of the country. Adult and childhood asthma rates in New England are among the highest of any of the other 10 U.S. Department of Health and Human Service regions.13

Particulate matter, or PM, is the term for particles found in the air, including dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. Some particles are large or dark enough to be seen as soot or smoke, and others are so small that they can only be detected with an electron microscope. They can remain suspended in the air for long periods of time. Particles smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) pose a health concern because they can be inhaled and accumulate in the respiratory system. Particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) are referred to as “fine” particles. Because of their small size—approximately 1/30th the average width of a human hair—these particles can lodge deeply into the lungs15 and cause health problems such as asthma, bronchitis, and heart attacks. Because these fine particles penetrate into sensitive parts of the lungs, they can cause or worsen respiratory disease, such as emphysema and bronchitis, and can aggravate existing heart disease, leading to increased hospital admissions and premature death.

Sulfur dioxides, better known as SO2, are sulfur-based gases that have a range of harmful effects on the human respiratory system, according to the U.S. EPA. Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to SO2, ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an array of adverse respiratory effects including bronchoconstriction and increased asthma symptoms. Studies also show a connection between short-term exposure and increased emergency room visits and hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses, especially for at-risk populations including children, the elderly, and asthmatics.16

The Price We Pay

health impacts from Brayton Point 2012 emissions14

# Cases

Mortality 15–39

Acute Bronchitis 20

Heart Attacks 30

Asthma Exacerbation 240

Chronic Bronchitis 9

Asthma Er Visits 9

Cardiovascular Hospital Admissions 9

respiratory Hospital Admissions 4

lower respiratory Symptoms 250

Minor reduced Activity Days 11,250

upper respiratory Symptoms 190

Work loss Days 1,890

Source: Powerplant Impact Evaluator model; Abt Associates.


Nitrogen oxides contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone and fine particulate pollution and are linked to a number of adverse effects on the respiratory system.

Ozone is formed when carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and volatile organic compounds (CO + NOx + VOC’s) react in the presence of heat and sunlight. Children, the elderly, people with lung diseases such as asthma, and people who work or exercise outside are at risk for health damage from ozone. These include reduction in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms, as well as respiratory-related emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and possibly premature deaths.”17

Bristol County, home of Somerset and Brayton Point, earned a grade of “F” in the category of ozone in the 2013 American Lung Association’s State of the Air report, which determines health risk levels based on air pollution measurements.18 The significance is grim, placing residents at risk for premature death, aggra- vated asthma, difficulty breathing, cardiovascular harm and lower birth weight.19

Children, the elderly, people with lung diseases such as asthma, and people who work or exercise outside are at risk for health damage from ozone which can result in respiratory-related emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and possibly premature deaths.

© iStockphoto


2012 Emissions from Brayton Point Power Plant and Associated Health Effects

toxic Pollutant

2012 amount released

Known Carcinogen neurotoxin reproductive Developmental

heart & Pulmonary

lung & respiratory

endocrine disrupting

Hydrochloric Acid

3,700 lbs ●

Hydrogen Fluoride

5,100 lbs ●

Hydrogen Cyanide

3,500 lbs ● ●

Antimony 22 lbs ● ●

Arsenic 120 lbs ● ● ● ●

Beryllium 5 lbs ● ●

Cadmium 6 lbs ● ● suspected

Chromium 915 lbs ● ●

Cobalt 32 lbs suspected ● ●

lead 82 lbs ● ● ● ● ●

Manganese 190 lbs ● ● ●

Nickel 560 lbs ●

Selenium 690 lbs suspected ●

Mercury 14 lbs ● ● ● ●

ePa Concludes ozone Pollution Poses serious health threats20

• Causesrespiratoryharm(e.g.worsenedasthma,worsenedchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease(COPD),inflammation)

• Likelytocauseearlydeath(bothshort-termandlong-termexposure)

• Likelytocausecardiovascularharm(e.g.heartattacks,strokes,heartdisease,congestive heartfailure)

• Maycauseharmtothecentralnervoussystem

• Maycausereproductiveanddevelopmentalharm

Source: u.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants, 2013. EPA/600/r-10/076F.

Source:EPAIPMmodeloutputsfromtheMercuryandAirToxics(MATS)docket.MercurydatafromMADEP.


Antonia in Mansfield, Massachusetts

When my son was a toddler, our pediatrician began to suspect that he might have asthma.

Confirmation came when ordinary colds manifested into acute respiratory infections requiring nebulizer treatments and countless doctor visits. the simple act of breathing has never been something my son, now 10 years old, can take for granted.

One of his most frightening asthma attacks occurred when my son was just five years old. He was playing

outside with his friends, as he does on most days, and suddenly found himself unable to catch his breath. He had a look of fear and bewilderment in his eyes and it seemed like an eternity before we were able to get his asthma under control using a combination of medications and nebulizer treatments. If my son’s pediatrician hadn’t been available by phone to guide us through the crisis, I would have rushed him straight to the emergency room.

recently, my son experienced another terrifying asthma attack when he was playing basketball outdoors; he was unable to catch his breath and became extremely ill. I know that Bristol County, where we reside, once again got a failing grade for ozone pollution in the American lung Association’s 2013 State of the Air report, so I worry that air pollution could be triggering these attacks. On unhealthy air days, I am some-times forced to keep him inside, which isn’t fair to an active, athletic boy who wants nothing more than to play outside with his friends. Alternately, because of the poor air quality, he is forced to use an inhaler just so he can breathe adequately, enabling him to partici-pate in outdoor camps and activities like baseball, which he loves. While I can’t keep my son in a bubble, there are things that we, as a concerned society, can do col-lectively to improve our air quality.

reproduced with permission from American lung Association of New England. Photo: Antonia.

Environmental Justice

Emissions from Brayton Point disproportionately harm pregnant women, young children, and poor and working-class populations. In a 2012 report released by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) that examined the

impacts of coal-burning on people of modest means and minority groups, Brayton Point ranked 14th-worst of 378 coal plants nationwide and earned a rank of “F” for environmental justice.21 The health impact to low- and moderate-income people in the immediate vicinity of Brayton Point warrants serious concern.


Massachusetts’ Environmental Justice (EJ) Policy defines EJ populations as neighborhoods, based on U.S. Census Bureau census block groups, that meet one or more of the following criteria:

• Themedianannualhouseholdincomeisatorbelow65percentofthestatewidemedian income for Massachusetts; or

• 25percentoftheresidentsareminority;or• 25percentoftheresidentsareforeignborn,or• 25percentoftheresidentsarelackingEnglishlanguageproficiency.

The EJ population map shows that many of these neighborhoods are located in densely populated urban neighborhoods, in and around the state’s oldest industrial sites.22

Furthermore, pollution from Brayton Point strikes deeply at Gateway Cities and Environmental Justice communities along Massachusetts’ South Coast. Both Fall River and New Bedford are Gateway Cities: historic, former industrial cities facing challenges to physical and economic health as they strive toward a new era of innovation. These cities are home to immigrant groups, non-English speakers and people with limited English proficiency who may have limited ability to access critical health and safety information such as posted fish advisories. Amongst broader society, these groups may also be at comparative economic disadvantage. Commercial and subsistence fisherman alike suffer a range of impacts from these emissions: those who depend on clean water for their livelihood receive a dual toll of economic and environmental injustice.

Environmental Effects

While this report focuses primarily on the health effects to humans and the associated healthcare costs, it is critical to recognize that burning coal continues to damage the natural environment. The environmental effects can be damaging to wildlife and

natural systems and impose their own kinds of economic damage down the road. For instance, emissions of carbon dioxide from Brayton Point—the second largest single emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution in Massachusetts—are adding to global pollution leading to increasingly disruptive climate events which damage and destroy human health and property.23 Heavy metals emitted by the plant—some in quantities of many hundreds of pounds per year—include mercury, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, and nickel. These metals bring about environmental effects such as reduced biodiversity, birth defects and neurological damage to wildlife including birds and many vertebrates.24,25,26

© iStockp

hoto


Costs to Society: Health & Wealth

The current economic costs of healthcare and mortality related to pollution from Brayton Point are based on 2012 reported emissions. It should be noted again that Brayton Point operated at historically low levels in 2012, owing to economic factors including the low

price of gas. For emissions, their health effects and related costs, 2012 represents unusually low levels in the historic polluting record of this plant.

The table shows the 2012 results and also details total health impacts and their associated costs for the next decade, under two operating scenarios. The first is a ten year projection based on how much the plant operated in 2012, which was historically low. The second set of data is a ten year projected total based on operating capacity averaged using operating rates of 2010, 2011, and 2012.

Health Impacts for 2012Ten Year Health Impacts Based on 2012 Emissions

Ten Year Health Impacts Based on 2010–2012 Average Emissions

Cases Valuation Cases Valuation Cases Valuation

Mortality15–39 $112,000,000 to

$286,000,000150–390 $1,120,000,000 to

$2,860,000,000320–840 $2,408,000,000 to

$6,149,000,000

acute Bronchitis 20 $9,000 200 $90,000 430 $193,500

heart attacks 30 $3,060,000 300 $30,600,000 645 $65,790,000

asthma exacerbation 240 $12,500 2,400 $125,000 5,160 $268,750

Chronic Bronchitis 9 $4,190,000 90 $41,900,000 195 $90,085,000

asthma er Visits 9 $3,500 90 $35,000 195 $75,250

Cardiovascular hospital admissions

9 $235,000 90 $2,350,000 195 $5,052,500

respiratory hospital admissions

4 $56,000 40 $560,000 85 $1,204,000

lower respiratory symptoms

250 $4,700 2,500 $47,000 5,375 $101,050

Minor reduced activity Days

11,250 $685,000 112,500 $6,850,000 241,875 $14,727,500

upper respiratory symptoms

190 $5,600 1,900 $56,000 4,085 $120,400

Work loss Days 1,890 $190,000 18,900 $1,900,000 40,635 $4,085,000

total Valuationthe total 2012 valuation is $120.5 to $294.5 million.

the ten year total valuation is $1.2 to $2.9 billion.

the ten year total valuation is $2.6 to $6.3 billion.

Source: Powerplant Impact Evaluator; Abt Associates.


Solutions

We can reduce the health impacts from Brayton Point by transitioning away from burning coal. For our energy needs, an ongoing shift is needed to rely increasingly on energy efficiency, conservation and clean renewables. Provisions must be made

for a just transition for Somerset—a community that has borne the health effects of two coal plants in its history—that provides new economic opportunities and jobs and also supports displaced workers while moving away from burning coal.

Energy Efficiency & ConservationEfficiency programs save money, create jobs and significantly reduce demand on our power grid, thereby averting fossil fuel emissions. Massachusetts is a national leader in energy efficiency with strong, ratepayer-funded programs for its residential, commercial and industrial sectors. Across the United States, new energy efficiency programs alone are projected to reduce summer peak demand by almost 20,000 megawatts (MW)—a full year’s growth—by 2018.27 Recognizing efficiency as our “first fuel,” Massachusetts is well-poised to progressively expand energy-saving measures that have demonstrated positive impact in our communities.28

Establishing true equity in energy efficiency programs is critical for Massachusetts. Those living with poor air quality, substandard housing stock and reduced access to affordable, healthy food deserve full access to energy efficiency programs which cut electric bills, improve home comfort and protect the environment and our health from pollution.29 The state’s three-year plan for 2013–2015 raise the bar, setting aggressive targets and dedicating $2 billion dollars in energy efficiency spend-ing over the three year period.30 Innovations in financ-ing and targeted efforts to serve lower-income popula-tions and reach landlords will have profound effects onresidents facing access barriers to energy efficiency improvements.31 New state initiatives such as the Accelerated Energy Program will retrofit hundreds of state-run sites,32 including “skating rinks, police barracks, courthouses, entire college campuses, and even the Statehouse.”33

The Commonwealth is already innovating energy efficiency. To take Massachusetts to the next level we can:

• Strengthenresidentialenergyprogramstoincentivizeparticipationbypropertyowners,and resolve landlord/tenant barriers;

• MaximizeenergyefficiencyamongCommercialandIndustrial(C&I)customerswhere opportunities for saving energy and reducing business costs can yield multiple benefits;

• Assistmunicipalitiesintrackingdataandcoordinatinggreenandhealthyhousingefforts(e.g. weatherization and lead or asbestos removal) and delivering technical assistance to small businesses around efficiency;

Efficiency programs save money, create jobs and significantly reduce demand on our power grid, thereby averting fossil fuel emissions. Massachusetts is a national leader in energy efficiency with strong, ratepayer-funded programs for its residential, commercial and industrial sectors.


• PassbuildingstretchcodeandenergydisclosuremeasuresincommunitiesacrosstheCommonwealth; and

• Implement comprehensive database reform, opening public access to and multi-stakeholder innovation of publicly funded energy programs.

Clean Energy Resources Massachusetts has great opportunities to expand clean energy development with strong financial incentives, untapped resources, and growing demand for clean energy. Wind and solar present viable alternatives to the burning of fossil fuels for energy, and the Commonwealth has a good initial track record of empowering these options.

The Green Communities Act of 200834 (GCA) set renewable energy and efficiency as clear priorities for the Commonwealth, creating standards and investing the governor’s office with the authority to expand power options in Massachusetts. In 2011, GCA policies attracted $542 million in clean tech venture investment,35 and the benefits

of this law continue to emerge. Comprehensive energy legislation passed in 2012 enhanced the Commonwealth’s commitment to building renewable energy projects. The provisions extend financial aid provisions for renewable energy projects and shift utility procurement of energy further in the direction of clean power sources.36

Alongside strides in energy efficiency and conservation, the potential for wind and solar energy resources to fill much of the gap left by retiring coal plants is in sight. Wind energy could provide 20% of power in the United States by 203037 with currently available technology, according to research by the U.S. Department of Energy. Massachusetts currently has the potential to site approximately 7,500 MW of wind38 and as much as 25,200 MW through changes in zoning, permitting, and land use guidelines.39 In Massachusetts, the Patrick administration has set state goals for 2,000 MW of wind and 1,600 MW of solar by 2020.40 Once built, Cape Wind will contribute sig-nificantly to these targets, and state-led initiatives like Solarize MA41 and the Accelerated Energy Program42 are continuing to lay the groundwork for clean power generation in Massachusetts.

Renewable energy has a notable, positive impact on air quality. Wind and solar energy are zero emission sources and can substantially reduce emissions, whether sited within the same power market as fossil fuel plants, or connected via an emissions trading program.43 Harmful air pollu-tants released by coal–burning have a tangible cost to public health, and replacing this power source with non-polluting alternatives has a tangible benefit. Renewable power also helps to cut our greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change, thereby averting future costs associated with global temperature and weather shifts. One megawatt of wind power offsets nearly 2,600 tons of carbon dioxide annually.44

© D

avid

Ger

ratt

/Non

pro

fitD

esig

n.co

m


To advance renewable energy, Massachusetts can:

• Continuetopilotandadvancespecialprojects like Solarize MA with clear education around financing options for solar installations;

• Partnerwithcommunitiestobringclean energy to state and municipal buildings, and engage the public around renewable power;

• Conductbroad-basedpubliceduca-tion and community-based dialogue on wind siting; and

• PasstheWindSitingReformAct,whichwouldhelptoleveltheplayingfieldforwind power while preserving public input.45

Just Transition for Coal Host Communities Nationwide, coal-fired power’s viability is diminishing, with clear evidence here in New England. Coal plants such as Somerset Station closed in 2010, AES Thames in Montville, Connecticut went bankrupt and closed in 2011, and Salem Harbor Station is set to cease coal-burning by 2014. The difficulties facing coal plants have come about due to what economists, environmental advocates, and municipal officials alike term a “perfect storm” of conditions.46,47

The multiple blows to the coal industry include: changing energy markets, decreased power usage, and the creation of new environmental standards such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS)48 or regulation of existing coal-fired power plants.49 Natural gas prices have declined significantly since 2008, often making it a more competitive choice than coal. Whole-sale energy market prices have decreased in response to declining gas prices, resulting in reduced generation at coal plants like Brayton Point and reduced revenue for coal plant owners. Finally, energy usage is decreasing: between 2008 and 2012, energy usage in the ISO-NE region decreased by 2–3% as a result of both the economic downturn and increased energy efficiency.

Like many coal host communities, Somerset, Massachusetts leans heavily on Brayton Point to fuel its economy—and the future for the power plant looks increasingly bleak. Helping our coal host communities develop a plan for alternative economic centers is essential, given the mounting evidence that coal-fired power is in decline. Brayton Point’s earnings dropped from $345 million in 2009 to $24 million in 2012, a decrease of some 93%.50 When the plant was recently packaged for sale with two Midwestern coal plants, an investor report valued Brayton Point at $54 million: less than the proceeds likely would be from scrapping the plant entirely.51 Even as the plant’s assessed value dropped by hundreds of millions of dollars between 2012 and 2013, Dominion Power would like to pay less in taxes and is appealing that valuation.52

A looming question for Somerset, and coal host communities like it, is “What comes next?” Any approach to revitalizing coal plants, notes a 2012 article in The Public Manager, should be a collaborative, multi-stakeholder process and “should include clarity of vision, a realistic business

Courtesy of New England Wind Fund


plan, and feasible financing mechanisms that can pay for site cleanup and redevelopment.”53 But how is that vision generated, and who gets to determine what business plans and financing mechanisms are right for the host community? In Somerset, those who have borne the devastating health burdens caused by coal are now threatened, economically and socially, by the disin-tegration of jobs and revenues that have funded the basic operations of their town. Finding a solution for the future—a just transition—means resolving a tripled conundrum of health, wealth and workforce.

Efforts have taken place across the country to redevelop coal plants and other industrial facilities, such as old mill sites and closed military bases. Community resi-dents and local and state officials can draw on both national and local examples to determine best practices

for Somerset. Drawing on several of these examples, the authors of this report would suggest that getting to (re)solution requires, first and foremost, a robust community process. Such a process might include:

1. Input and exchange between residents, planners and policymakers;2. Conversations over time that communicate the evolution of the project;3. A planning process that is adaptive to public feedback; 4. Technical assistance to help residents understand zoning, funding opportunities

and limitations of the site; 5. Community visioning—a highly participatory engagement that empowers residents,

municipal and state officials to call for redevelopment that will enhance social, economic and environmental merits and is culturally appropriate to the area.

Additionally, a model redevelopment must include early identification and leveraging of resources, dedicated time and space for reuse planning, a clear pathway for plant workers, and strong coor-dination between public and private parties. Genuine, pro-active efforts toward a smooth transition to a brighter economic future for the Somerset area can yield a redevelopment which benefits the economy, the environment, and the social fabric of Somerset and the South Coast.

A model redevelopment must include

early identification and leveraging

of resources, dedicated time and space

for reuse planning, a clear pathway for

plant workers, and strong coordination

between public and private parties.

Genuine, pro-active efforts can yield

a redevelopment which benefits the

economy, the environment, and the

social fabric of Somerset and the

South Coast.


Conclusion

These various analyses, statistics and trends point to a single conclusion: health and economic damage from burning coal is too great. Society bears a high financial burden that could be avoided if burning coal were reduced or eliminated. Burning coal has been

recognized as dangerous for human health and for global climate change. However, without accounting for the full costs of burning coal, which includes health problems and their associated expenses, the economic damages have neither been recognized fully, nor incorporated into the bottom line.

Brayton Point Station is handicapping the economic strength of Massachusetts’ communities and the region, even at 2012’s historically low operating capacity. If the true costs of burning coal were borne by coal companies instead of by Massachusetts’ families, profitability for Brayton Point power plant would be greatly diminished or altogether lost. When elected officials, regulators, workers, and residents understand that our energy choices are crippling our health and economy, the urgency to replace coal-burning power with efficiency measures, con-servation, and cleaner energy sources will grow. Reduced reliance on burning coal for electricity in Somerset and the region will diminish the damaging health effects, mortality, and expense that its pollution creates.

© D

avid Cleaveland, M

aine Imaging


Methodology & Acknowledgments

Health impacts were calculated using the Powerplant Impact Evaluator model (PIE) developed by Abt Associates. Toxics emissions were estimated using emission factors calculated from EPA IPM model outputs from the Mercury and Air Toxics (MATS) docket.

To estimate the PM2.5-related benefits associated with reducing emissions from electric generating units (EGUs), the PIE model first calculates the impact on ambient air quality, and then using the results from epidemiological studies, it estimates the number of adverse health impacts (e.g., avoided deaths), and then finally it estimates the associated economic benefits. This three-step process is the standard approach for evaluating the health and economic benefits of reduced air pollution. EPA used this approach when evaluating the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the Clean Air Act, the benefits of reducing greenhouse gases, the health effects of motor vehicles, and other major regulations.— From Technical Support Document for the Powerplant Impact Estimator Software Tool54

ResearchersDavid Schoengold, Senior Consultant, MSB Energy AssociatesSchoengold co-founded MSB Energy Associates in 1988 to provide planning and analytical services and litigation support to groups with an interest in public utility policy. Schoengold has been working with the Clean Air Task Force to develop a detailed database of information on the operating characteristic, emissions and expected future market value of U.S. power plants.

Conrad Schneider, Clean Air Task ForceConrad Schneider has more than 15 years experience fighting air pollution and climate change. Conrad directs CATF’s advocacy efforts, writes, and speaks on air pollution and climate change issues, and testifies before Congress and state legislatures and in federal and state administrative hearings. His advocacy work focuses on reducing pollution from power plants and diesel vehicles. Conrad currently serves on the board of directors of the Center for Clean Air Policy in Washington, D.C. and teaches Environmental Law and Policy at Bowdoin College.

Authors Becky Smith,CampaignsDirector,CleanWaterAction&CleanWaterFund,[email protected] Wool,CleanEnergyOrganizer,CleanWaterAction&CleanWaterFund,[email protected]

Reviewers Cindy Luppi,CleanWaterAction&CleanWaterFundShanna Cleveland, Conservation Law FoundationCasey Harvell, American Lung Association of the NortheastJames McCaffrey, Sierra ClubSylvia Broude, Toxics Action Center

Design & Production: David Gerratt/NonprofitDesign.com


A P P E N D I X A

Health Effects: Further Details

Hydrochloric Acid can cause irritation of the throat at low-level, brief exposure. Higher levels of exposure or longer exposure times to low levels can cause rapid breathing, accumulation of fluid in the lungs, or an inflammatory reaction of the airways that is a type of asthma.55

Hydrogen Fluoride is a corrosive acid emitted from coal-burning power plants as a gas or particle, which is capable of attaching to other particles and can be readily deposited in humans’ upper airways and can cause irritation to skin, eye, nose, throat, and breathing passages. 56

Hydrogen Cyanide is a systemic chemical asphyxiant. Exposure can affect brain, heart, and lung function. No carcinogenic, reproductive, or developmental effects have been detected.57

Antimony is a metal that is often mixed into alloys or with textiles and plastics to act as a fire retardant. Exposure to high levels for a long time can affect human eyes, lungs, and hearts. The EPA has not classified antimony as to whether or not it is a human carcinogen.58

Arsenic is one of a number of integral components of fine particulate matter from coal burning plant emissions that have been determined to cause cardiovascular effects including heart attacks, breathing problems, and worsening of existing respiratory conditions such as asthma, and is a known carcinogen.59

Beryllium is another metal emitted from coal-fired power plants that is a component of small particulate matter, which is inhaled and becomes lodged in and causes damage to the human respiratory system. Beryllium is a known human carcinogen, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.60

Cadmium is a known developmental toxicant and suspected endocrine disruptor.61 Studies on animals have suggested cadmium may be carcinogenic and EPA classifies the substance as a probable carcinogen. Chronic inhalation can damage the lungs, liver, and kidneys.

Chromium exposure can have respiratory effects and is a known human carcinogen according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.62

Cobalt is a naturally occurring metal that can cause irritation of the skin, eyes, nose and throat when its dust is inhaled. It is a suspected human carcinogen, and may also damage the human male reproductive system, according to the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services.63


Lead is a naturally occurring metal that is a known carcinogen, and causes damage to embryos and birth defects. Lead is cumulative in the environment and in human bodies, building up over time, and leads to reduced IQ in children, and high blood pressure and heart disease in adults, according to the U.S. EPA.64

Manganese is a naturally occurring metal, which is needed in small quantities to be healthy. In excess, exposure to manganese can cause brain damage and lead to nervous system effects such as slowed motor movements. Exposure to high levels of manganese in air can irritate lungs and lead to reproductive effects.65 It is not known whether excessive manganese exposure will cause cancer in humans.

Nickel is a naturally occurring metal and a known carcinogen.66 Exposure to large doses of nickel can have profound effects on the respiratory system. In regards to coal-fired power plants, a primary concern for respiratory health is emissions of small particulate matter with high concentration of nickel.67

Selenium is a naturally occurring metal found widely in nature, and low-level exposure through food and water is common. Low elements of selenium can be beneficial to health, but high expo-sure can lead to respiratory irritation, bronchitis, and coughing, as well as neurological effects.68

Mercury is a naturally occurring element that is found, in multiple forms, in the environment and ranks among the World Health Organization’s top 10 chemicals of major health concern. Human exposure occurs mainly when methylmercury is absorbed through the consumption of fish.69 Mercury is a persistent, bioaccumulative toxin; it remains in the environment and accumulates through the food chain all the way up to the human body.70 It is poisonous to the nervous system, kidneys, liver and immune system, and may impair heart and reproductive functions. 71,72,73 Mercury presents an elevated risk to children and pregnant women.74,75 Recent research correlates mercury emissions with increased rates of autism.76 About 630,000 children are born each year at risk for lowered intelligence and learning problems due to exposure to high levels of mercury in the womb, according to a 2004 analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency.77


1 How Do Coal-Fired Plants Work? (AccessedJuly2013).Retrievedfromhttp://www.duke-energy.com/about-energy/generating-electricity/coal-fired-how.asp.

2 Rosenberg,S.(2007,January7).Parknamingholdsalesson. The Boston Globe. retrieved http://www.boston.com/news/local/ articles/2007/01/07/parks_naming_holds_a_lesson.

3 Brayton Point Power Station. (AccessedJune2013).Retrievedfromhttps://www.dom.com/about/stations/fossil/brayton-point-power-station.jsp.

4 About Dominion. (AccessedJune2013).Retrievedfromhttps://www.dom.com/about/index.jsp.

5 u.S. Energy Information Administration. Form EIA-923 detailed data. (AccessedJuly2013).Retrievedfromhttp://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923.

6 Global Warming Solutions Act Dashboard. (2013).Retrievedfromhttp://www.mass.gov/eea/air-water-climate-change/climate-change/massachusetts-global-warming-solutions-act/global-warming- solutions-act-dashboard.html#about.

7 Brayton Point Power Station. (AccessedJune2013).Retrievedfromhttps://www.dom.com/about/stations/fossil/brayton-point-power-station.jsp.

8 Schlissel,D.andSanzillo,T.(2013).ConservationLawFoundation.Dark Days Ahead. retrieved from http://www.clf.org/blog/clean- energy-climate-change/dark-days-ahead-the-financial-future-of- brayton-point.

9 Schlissel, D. and Sanzillo, t. Conservation law Foundation. Dark Days Ahead. retrieved from http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/dark-days-ahead-the-financial-future-of-brayton-point.

10 u.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Part F: Brayton Point Station Case Study. retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/phase2/upload/chf1.pdf.

11 U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration.(October2011).State CO2 Emissions. retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/state_emissions.cfm.

12 u.S. Energy Information Administration. State Electricity Profiles, Table 5, Electric Power Industry Generation by Primary Energy Source 1990-2010. retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/massachusetts.

13 AsthmaRegionalCouncil.(2006,March).The Burden of Asthma in New England. retrieved from http://asthmaregionalcouncil.org/ uploads/Surveillance/TheBurdenofAsthmainNewEnglandMarch2006.Summary.pdf.

14 Abt Associates. Powerplant Impact Evaluator model. Methodology retrieved from http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/ Abt-Technical_Support_Document_for_the_Powerplant_Impact_ Estimator_Software_Tool.pdf.

15 u.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Frequent Questions. retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/faq.htm.

16 u.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Heath. retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/health.html.

17 u.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nitrogen Dioxide. retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/oar/nitrogenoxides.

18 AmericanLungAssociation.(2013).State of the Air 2013. retrieved from http://www.stateoftheair.org/2013/states/massachusetts/ bristol-25005.html.

19 AmericanLungAssociation.(2013).State of the Air 2013. retrieved from http://www.stateoftheair.org/2013/key-findings/ozone-pollution.html.

20 AmericanLungAssociation.(2013).State of the Air 2013. retrieved from http://www.stateoftheair.org/2013/health-risks/health-risks-ozone.html.

21 Wilson, Adrian et. al. 2012. Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Indigenous Environmental Network, little Village Environmental Justice Organization. retrieved from http://www.naacp.org/pages/coal-blooded1.

22 MA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. Environ-mental Justice Policy. retrieved July 2013 http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/ej/ej-factsheet-english.pdf.

23 Global Warming Solutions Act Dashboard. (2013).Retrievedfromhttp://www.mass.gov/eea/air-water-climate-change/climate-change/massachusetts-global-warming-solutions-act/global-warming- solutions-act-dashboard.html#about.

24 “Mercury—Health Effects.” uS Environmental Protection Agency. 7 February 2012. Accessed April 28, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/ mercury/effects.htm.

25 “lead in Air – Health.” uS Environmental Protection Agency. 3 March 2012. Accessed 3 May 2013. http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/health.html

26 Mercury in the Environment. uS Geological Survey. October 2000. Accessed May 3, 2013. retrieved from http://www.usgs.gov/themes/factsheet/146-00.

27 Bradley, M.J., S.F. tierney, C.E. Van Atten, P.J. Hubbard, A. Saha, and C. Jenks. 2010. Ensuring a clean, modern electric generating fleet while maintaining electric system reliability. http://www.mjbradley. com/sites/default/files/MJBAandAnalysisGroupReliabilityReport August2010.pdf.

28 MassachusettsDepartmentofEnergyResources.(2009).Energy Efficiency in Massachusetts: Our First Fuel. retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/energy-efficiency/ee-story-booklet-web.pdf

29 Frumkin,Howard.(2005).GuestEditorial:Health,Equity,andthe Built Environment Environ Health Perspectives,113(5),A290–A291.retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257564.

30 Foster, B. Chittum, A., Hayes, S., Neubauer, M., et al. The 2012 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy. October 2012. retrieved from http://aceee.org/files/pdf/fact-sheet/e12c-es.pdf.

31 Grant,Judith.(2013).Building a Brighter Day: Energy Efficiency Innovations Yield High Returns for the Commonwealth. Community labor united.

32 MassachusettsExecutiveOfficeforAdministrationandFinance.(June2013).Accelerated Energy Program. retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/anf/property-mgmt-and-construction/facilities-mgmt-and- maintenance/energy-and-sustainability/accelerated-energy-program.

33 Sylvia,M.,andCornelison,C.(2013,June2).Viewpoint:BayState Blazes trail for Clean Energy use. The Springfield Republican. retrieved from http://www.masslive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/06/viewpoint_bay_state_blazes_tra.html.

34 MassachusettsGeneralLaws.(2013).Retrievedfromhttps:// malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2008/Chapter169.

35 The Truth about Massachusetts’ Green Communities Act.(February2012).Rerievedfromhttp://www.clf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/GCA-Myth-vs-Fact_02-20-12.pdf.

36 U.S.DeparmentofEnergy.(2013).Wind Powering America. retrieved from www.windpoweringamerica.gov/filter_detail.asp?itemid=3780.

37 U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.(2008.)20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increas-ing Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply. retrieved from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/wind_energy_report.html.

38 http://www.mass.gov/eea/energy-utilities-clean-tech/renewable- energy/wind/wind-energy-facts.html#.

39 Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. Wind Energy: Facts. retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/renew-potential-summary.pdf.

40 MassachusettsDepartmentofEnergyResources.(2013.) Renewable Energy Snapshot. retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/installed-solwind.pdf.

41 See http://www.masscec.com/solarizemass.42 Sylvia,M.,andCornelison,C.(2013,June2).Viewpoint:BayState

Blazes trail for Clean Energy use. The Springfield Republican. retrieved from http://www.masslive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/06/viewpoint_bay_state_blazes_tra.html.

Endnotes


43 Jacobson,D.,andHigh,C.(2008).Wind Energy and Air Emission Reduction Benefits: A Primer. National renewable Energy labora-tory. retrieved from http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/policy/wind_air_emissions.pdf.

44 Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. Wind Energy: Facts. retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/renew-potential-summary.pdf.

45 MassachusettsGeneralLaws.(2013).Retrievedfromhttps://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/Senate/S1591.

46 Goode,J.C.(2013,March12).BraytonPointsalewon’taffecttaxappeals. The Herald News. retrieved from http://www.heraldnews.com/news/x846069098/Brayton-Point-sale-wont-affect-tax- appeals

47 Schlissel,D.andSanzillo,T.(2013).ConservationLawFounda-tion. Dark Days Ahead. retrieved from http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/dark-days-ahead-the-financial-future-of-brayton-point.

48 Burnes & McDonnell. Power Plant Decomissioning: A Noble Past, Many Possible Futures. retrieved from http://www.burnsmcd.com/benchmark/Article/Power-Plant-Decommissioning-A-Noble-Past-Many-Possible-Futures.

49 lederman, J. Obama Set to Announce Historic Climate Change PlanWithNewRegulationofPowerPlants.(2013,June25). Business Insider. retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-set-to-announce-historic-climate-change-plan-with- new-regulation-of-power-plants-2013-6.

50 Schlissel,D.andSanzillo,T.(2013).ConservationLawFounda-tion. Dark Days Ahead. retrieved from http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/dark-days-ahead-the-financial-future-of-brayton-point.

51 Brayton Point was packaged for sale with An investor report from uBS estimates the value of the plant at http://www.clf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/UBS-2.pdf

52 Goode,J.C.(2013,March12).BraytonPointsalewon’taffecttaxappeals. The Herald News. retrieved from http://www.heraldnews.com/news/x846069098/Brayton-Point-sale-wont-affect-tax- appeals.

53 Staple, G. and Slavin, M. repurposed Coal Plant Sites Empower and revive Communities. The Public Manager. Spring 2012. pp. 45–47.

54 2010 technical Support Document for the Powerplant Impact Estimator Software tool. retrieved from http://www.catf.us/ resources/publications/files/Abt-Technical_Support_Document_for_the_Powerplant_Impact_Estimator_Software_Tool.pdf.

55 “Hydrogen Chloride.” Agency for toxic Substances and Disease registry. April 2002. Accessed 1 May 2013. http://www.atsdr. cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts173.pdf.

56 “Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal-Fired Power Plants.” Environmental Health & Engineering. American lung Association. 7 March 2011. http://www.lung.org/assets/ documents/healthy-air/coal-fired-plant-hazards.pdf.

57 “Hydrogen Cyanide: Systemic Agent.” Centers for Disease Control. the Emergency response Safety and Health Database. 8 March 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/Emergency ResponseCard_29750038.html.

58 “Antimony.” Agency for toxic Substances and Disease registry. 3 March 2011. Accessed 1 May 2013. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/TF.asp?id=331&tid=58.

59 “Arsenic.” Agency for toxic Substances and Disease registry. 3 March 2011. Accessed 1 May 2013. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=3.

60 “Berylium.” Agency for toxic Substances and Disease registry. 3 March 2011. Accessed 1 May 2013. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=33.

61 “Cadmium Compounds.” united States Environmental Protec-tion Agency. 6 November 2007. Accessed May 2, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/hlthef/cadmium.html.

62 “Chromium.” Agency for toxic Substances and Disease registry. 3 March 2011. Accessed 1 May 2013. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=17.

63 Cobalt. New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services. right to Know Program. 7 March 2013. Accessed May 1, 2013. http://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/0520.pdf.

64 “lead in Air —Health.” uS Environmental Protection Agency. 3 March 2012. Accessed 3 May 2013. http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/health.html.

65 “Manganese.” Agency for toxic Substances and Disease registry. 3 March 2011. Accessed 1 May 2013. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=23.

66 reducing Air Pollution from Power Plants. uS Environmental Protection Agency. 27 March 2012. Accessed 1 May 2013. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplants.

67 “toxicological Profile for Nickel.” Agency for toxic Substances and Disease registry. August 2005. Accessed 1 May 2013. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp15-c6.pdf.

68 “Selenium.” Agency for toxic Substances and Disease registry. September 2003. Accessed 3 May 2013. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts92.pdf.

69 “Mercury and health.” World Health Organization. April 2012. Accessed 2 May 2013. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/ factsheets/fs361/en.

70 “About PBts.” uS Environmental Protection Agency. 18 April 2011. Accessed 3 May 2013. http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/aboutpbt.htm.

71 “Multimedia Strategy For Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, andToxic(PBT)Chemicals.”28April2011.Accessed3May2013.uS Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pbt/pubs/fact.htm.

72 “Public Health Statement for Mercury.”Agency for toxic Sub-stancesandDiseaseRegistry(ATSDR).1999.Accesssed2May2013. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs46.html.

73 Murata et al., The Journal of Pediatrics, February 2004. Volume 144(2)pp.177–183.

74 “Mercury: Health Effects.” u.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 7 February 2012. http://www.epa.gov/hg/effects.htm.

75 “Mercury Health Effects.” Massachusetts Department of Environ-mental Protection. 2013. http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/toxics/sources/mercury-health-effects.html.

76 Palmera, r.F. et. al. “Environmental mercury release, special education rates, and autism disorder: an ecological study of texas.” Health & Place. Issue 12. 2006. pp. 203–209.

77 U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2004).Methylmercury:Epidemiology update, Presentation by Kathryn Mahaffey, PhD at the National Forum on Contaminants in Fish. San Diego, CA(January25–28,2004).

Printed on recycled pap

er using vegetab

le-based inks

Coal Free Massachusetts is a state-wide coalition of environmental, economic

justice, public health, faith and community groups, working to phase out coal in

Massachusetts by 2020 by protecting public health and communities, supporting

efforts to make the transition to energy efficiency and clean renewable energy

sources, and revitalizing local economies to create more jobs.

© August 2013, Coal Free MassachusettsCoalFreeMass.org

brayton point coal plant...brayton point coal plant 3 the coal cycle i n order to create electric...

Documents