DOCKET NO

DOCKET NO } Connecticut DOCKET NO. 191 - An application by AES Southington, LLC for a Certificate of Environmental } Siting Compatibility and Public Need for the construction, maintenance, and operation of an electric generating } Council facility at 149 Lazy Lane in the Town of Southington, Connecticut. } May 25, 1999 Opinion On December 3, 1998, AES Southington, LLC (AES) applied to the Connecticut Siting Council (Council) for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need (Certificate) for the construction, maintenance, and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW) natural gas-fired combined cycle facility. The Town of Southington’s Conservation (serving as the Inland Wetlands Commission) and Zoning Commissions issued Regulate and Restrict Orders for the proposed electric generating facility, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes (C.G.S.) ?16-50x. These municipal regulatory bodies conditionally approved AES’s applications to fill and alter wetlands and floodplains, to excavate earthen material, and to vary certain provisions of the Town’s zoning regulations. The Town Council and Town Manager also support the proposed project. The Town dutifully carried out its responsibilities consistent with its zoning and inland wetland regulations, and the goals of the Town’s Plan of Development. While the Council and the Town share many of the same ideals: to provide reliable services, protect the environment and the community, and to encourage economic development; the Council, pursuant to its legislative charge, must evaluate and consider the cumulative benefits and impacts of this proposed facility on the State of Connecticut (State), as well as on the local community. On December 9, 1998, the Council received an appeal by Michelle Allaire, et al., to the municipal orders issued pursuant to C.G.S. ?16-50x. The Council consolidated all appeals within the application process which allowed issues raised in the appeal to be examined. The proposed project would provide several benefits including the in-state generation of power to meet increasing demand; the probable replacement of more polluting and costly fossil-fueled generating units in the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL); the diminished need to import power into the region given the transmission import constraints within the NEPOOL system. There may be an approximately 1,000-MW capacity deficit within NEPOOL by the year 2001; however, the Council has issued Certificates for new natural gas-fired electric generating facilities, with a cumulative output of approximately 1,850 MWs, within the State since the proposed facility application was filed with the Council. More applications for new natural gas-fired electric generating facilities are expected, not only in the State but throughout the NEPOOL system. While the development of these facilities is now a function of the competitive power market, there is no sense of urgency for the development of these facilities, nor is there any reason to compromise environmental standards necessary to protect the community. The proposed site is an approximately 74-acre parcel located at 149 Lazy Lane in the Town of Southington, Connecticut. An approximately 13-acre residentially zoned parcel located immediately south of the proposed western switchyard would be purchased by AES and would serve as a buffer to the proposed facility. The proposed site is traversed by electric transmission lines, a gas transmission pipeline, water supply lines, and an abandoned trolley bed. The nearest residential property line is approximately 550 feet Docket No. 191 Opinion May 25, 1999 Page 2 from the proposed cooling tower and approximately 800 feet from the proposed turbine building. The proposed site is industrially zoned; however, it abuts large areas of residential development to the south. The proximity of the proposed facility to residential development and the effects on its neighbors are factors weighed heavily by the Council. While approximately 74 acres is more than adequate for the plant layout, site constraints and the proximity of the residential development to the south leave little opportunity to buffer the physical plant and its operational emissions from adjacent residential receptors. Although the proposed facility would be located within an industrial zone and a 2,300-acre Enterprise Zone, this site is at the southern end of these zones. Even with the addition of the 13-acre parcel to the south of the proposed facility to serve as buffer, little separates this large facility from adjacent residential neighborhoods. The size and function of this facility suggest that it would be more appropriately surrounded and buffered by industrial or commercial development rather than bordered by residential development. Noise generated by construction activities would be 74 dBA at a distance of 300 feet, while some construction activities including soil stockpiling and equipment laydown would occur as close as approximately 50 feet from the abutting residential property line and approximately 120 feet from the nearest residential dwelling. Although construction noise is exempt from the State’s noise regulations, and the predicted noise generated by the proposed facility would be at or below State noise standards, the impact of noise would be widespread and would affect adjacent residential receptors. The proposed boiler building would be approximately 103 feet in height and the proposed exhaust stacks would be approximately 155 feet in height. The visibility analysis performed by AES in conjunction with the topographic profiles indicate that the proposed facility would be visible from several locations in all directions within an approximately one mile radius. The proposed facility would be adjacent to residential and commercial zones which generally have building heights of less than 45 feet. The visual impact of this facility would be significant given the contrast of the proposed structures to existing building heights in the area. Both the Algonquin Gas Company and the Tennessee Gas Company could provide the required natural gas to the proposed facility. An Algonquin natural gas pipeline traverses the site; however, Algonquin would increase the natural gas carrying capacity to the proposed facility by installing approximately 5.3 miles of 24-inch diameter pipe from its mainlines in Cheshire. Portions of the Algonquin right-of-way (ROW) contain wetland soils which may be significantly disturbed by the installation of a new pipeline. The Tennessee Gas Company would need to construct approximately 2.7 miles of 16-inch diameter pipe to the proposed site. Construction of these gas pipelines would likely affect wetlands, watercourses, and other environmental resources. Although AES selected the proposed site in part due to the availability of natural gas on the site, required expansion of these gas pipelines undermines the site selection process and results in an underestimation of environmental effects associated with the development of the proposed facility. The Council is aware that air quality in Connecticut is in need of improvement which may be possible through the displacement of older oil and coal-burning generation plants with new efficient gas-fired generation plants. As older plants are displaced, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide will decrease, improving both state and regional ambient air quality and the health of Connecticut residents. These results can be best achieved by employing advanced control of emissions, including dry low-nitrogen oxide combustion, water injection in the combustion turbines, selective catalytic reduction to reduce nitrogen oxide levels, and an oxidation catalyst to reduce carbon monoxide (CO). The proposed facility would substantially meet the goals of improving air quality; however, we question AES’s decision to not employ a CO catalyst, even though a CO catalyst would reduce CO emissions. Although particulate matter Docket No. 191 Opinion May 25, 1999 Page 3 and other pollutant emissions are projected to increase with this technology, AES could not quantify the potential increase in pollutant emissions or fully justify their selection of technologies. Furthermore, improved regional air quality as a result of the operation of new efficient electric generating facilities can be achieved at various locations in the State, and need not be within the Town of Southington. The proposed facility would use water at an average rate of approximately 3.3 million gallons per day (mgd) on natural gas, and additionally as much as 1.2 mgd for NO control, up to a maximum of 4.1 mgd x for facility cooling and process water needs. The New Britain Water Department (NBWD) system currently has a water supply capacity safe yield of 17.1 mgd with a demand that grows from approximately 10 mgd to a projected demand of 12.2 mgd by the year 2010. Accordingly, the State Department of Public Health (DPH) has stated that the proposed AES project could be served by the NBWD without negatively impacting its customers, and the reliability and dependability of the system, and that the proposed sale of water would be beneficial in allowing New Britain to maintain the financial capacity essential to meeting its regulatory and public obligations. Nonetheless, the financial gains realized by the NBWD, or any other water company, through the sale of water is not a prime consideration for the Council. Although the use of public water supply water for the proposed facility cooling needs is acceptable in the opinion of the DPH, we believe the protection and conservation of this natural resource is important and should not be overshadowed by economics. Furthermore, the consumptive use of water by AES would affect water release volumes and patterns from the NBWD system and would have adverse downstream impacts. The Roaring Brook and other watercourses, which are fed by reservoirs’ outflow, are presently impaired by intermittent low flow conditions. The utilization of 3.3 to 4.1 mgd of water by the proposed facility would exacerbate the low flow conditions of some reservoir-fed watercourses. Furthermore, the benefit of increased wastewater discharges during low flow conditions into the receiving watershed basin, as suggested by AES, is questionable and may still result in an annual net reduction of water to the Quinnipiac River basin. AES has suggested that when compared to wet-cooling technology, the use of dry-cooling technology would increase air pollutants in the State resulting from the increased consumption and combustion of fuel necessary to compensate for energy lost due to reduced efficiency. We find this reasoning to be self-serving. New efficient electric generating facilities in a competitive market would be able to produce sufficient electric power to compensate for any incremental efficiency loss or shortfall. On balance, in this case, we believe that the use of large quantities of public water supply water necessary for wet cooling is not justified by the minimal efficiency losses of a dry-cooled facility. The proposed original 74-acre site contains approximately 36 acres of wetlands including natural wetlands and man-made depressions. Approximately 1.6 acres of existing wetlands on the proposed site would be eliminated, 1.2 acres of the forested slope wetlands would be clear cut and converted to a shrub and herbaceous wetland area, and 3.5 acres of wetland buffer would be disturbed or eliminated. AES characterizes the proposed wetland disturbances as unavoidable. Avoidance of wetlands should be the principal consideration in the development of a site with extensive wetlands. However, AES did not propose a smaller facility interconnected with the closest CL&P 115-kV transmission line (number 1860) to avoid wetlands affected by the proposed power block and the proposed electrical interconnection to the more distant 345-kV transmission line (number 329). We believe an electric generating facility reduced in size and interconnected to the existing 1860 line would be more appropriate for the proposed site, and could result in substantially reduced wetland impacts. Docket No. 191 Opinion May 25, 1999 Page 4 Approximately 3.1 acres of new wetlands and 1.4 acres of new wetland buffer would be created on the proposed site to compensate for the wetland disturbance. The proposed wetland replacement areas would consist of an approximately 0.4-acre area (#1) located between two vernal pools at the abandoned trolley bed abutment; an approximately 1.0-acre area (#2) located along the eastern portion of the site from the northern vernal pool to the proposed stormwater management basin; an approximately 0.2-acre portion of the stormwater management basin; and an approximately 1.5-acre area (#3) located north of and adjacent to the Quinnipiac River in the River’s floodplain. The proposed construction of wetland mitigation area #1, involving the removal of the abandoned trolley bed and the connection of the vernal pools, would have detrimental effects on the vernal pool ecosystem as a result of variations in hydrology (inundation timing and depths), predator/prey interactions, and cross-colonization among vernal pool species. In addition, stormwater runoff from Lazy Lane would affect water quality of the northern vernal pool, which currently does not receive any stormwater road runoff. We believe the proposed drainage improvements and the proposed design of this wetland mitigation area would not support a productive vernal pool habitat given the degradation of water quality, the reduced water storage capacity, and the likelihood that the vernal pools would dry out prematurely. The site is also traversed by approximately 900 linear feet of the Quinnipiac River, which crosses the northeastern portion of the site and a portion of the 100-year floodplain. Approximately 7,200 cubic yards (cyds) of fill material would be placed within the existing 100-year floodplain as a result of the construction of the proposed facility. AES proposes to excavate approximately 9,300 cyds of earthen material from the area immediately north of the Quinnipiac River (wetland mitigation area #3) to compensate for the proposed filling of the floodplain and wetlands. Mathematically, the area of proposed excavation would exceed the area of proposed filling, and from an engineering standpoint it would provide adequate floodwater compensation; however, we question whether it is appropriate to take existing wetland buffer and riparian associated habitat, significantly alter it, and then refer to it as mitigation. There is limited evidence of how the habitat created for mitigation area #3 would be more productive than the existing habitat. The soils under the proposed facility power block and associated structures were identified primarily as non-wetland soils within hydrologic soil group “B”, even though they exhibit similar characteristics to wetland soils within hydrologic soil group “C”. These same soils under the proposed power block were considered hydrologic soil group “C” wetland soils for the purpose of calculating stormwater runoff values for the design of the stormwater detention basin. AES referred to the soils as transitional soils between soil groups “B” and “C”. If the soils under the proposed power block exhibit some of the same characteristics as wetland soils, it raises the question of whether AES underestimated the ecological value of the proposed site soils. Conversely, the proposed stormwater detention basin area may have been undersized, which may further encroach upon the Quinnipiac River, if expanded. The State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) submitted comments prior to the hearings for this application, based on a field review and information provided by the applicant. Although we respect DEP’s opinion regarding the proposed facility size balanced with the proposed mitigation of wetlands at a ratio of 2:1, the Council is obligated to consider all feasible mitigation measures including a reduction in size and reconfiguration of the proposed facility to minimize adverse environmental effects. After a more detailed examination of the application and supplemental information, provided by the applicant, and parties and intervenors, we find that the proposed wetland mitigation is insufficient to compensate for the Docket No. 191 Opinion May 25, 1999 Page 5 existing wetland functions and values that would be lost due to the development of the proposed facility. The design is technically flawed, ill-conceived, and therefore unjustified. The potential for explosions and accidental spills of various chemical compounds was a concern to intervenors and residents who spoke or submitted written comments to the Council. Fire protection systems for the proposed facility would be designed in accordance with Building and Fire Codes, supplemented by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) “recommended Practice for Fire Protection for Electric Generating Plants”. The proposed fire protection system would consist of the yard fire water system, detection systems, fixed suppression systems, and portable fire extinguishers. Spill control and collection for the proposed facility would include dikes, impervious liners, automatic oil stop valves, oil/water separators, underground vaults, depressional areas at various unloading stations, electronic monitoring, operator inspection, and manual controls. The Council believes that the proposed spill control measures are adequate and that natural gas-fired electric generating facilities are safe and pose minimal safety concerns to the community. Furthermore, there is no information in the record to suggest that AES would not operate a facility in compliance with applicable local and state regulations. We empathize with members of the community and their concerns regarding contamination of the environment from the Solvents Recovery Service of New England (SRSNE) site, located approximately 200 feet southeast of the proposed site. The SRSNE site would have no affect on the proposed facility given the direction of groundwater flow in the area and the fact that no groundwater withdrawals are proposed at the facility. Traffic associated with the construction and operation of the proposed facility would consist of vehicular trips for construction, fuel and equipment delivery, construction workers, and operating staff. We believe the proposed traffic would have minimal effect on traffic patterns and volumes for Queen Street (Route 10) and Lazy Lane. Ground-level fogging and icing in the vicinity of the proposed facility would be problematic and could threaten the safety of vehicular traffic on Interstate 84, Queen Street (Route 10), and Lazy Lane, which abut or are adjacent to the proposed site. AES’s preliminary results of the Seasonal/Annual Cooling Tower Impact (SACTI) model indicate that no ground-level fogging or icing would occur on Interstate 84 or Queen Street, but four hours of ground-level fogging and one hour of icing would occur on Lazy Lane annually. Although AES would use high efficiency drift eliminators and plume abatement technology at the proposed facility, the predicted occurrence of ground-level fogging near the proposed site is a concern to the Council, the Department of Transportation, and the community. Indeed, the proposed site may be prone to ground-level fogging because of its topography, the presence of the Quinnipiac River, and the introduction of millions of gallons of warm water vapor into the atmosphere at a height of only 65 feet above ground level. The State DEP Natural Diversity Data Base has one record of a state endangered, threatened, or special concern species occurring in the area, a plant named Arethusa bulbosa (swamp-pink). AES’s consultants inspected the proposed site and determined that no individuals of the Connecticut–listed endangered plant, Arethusa bulbosa, or suitable habitat was discovered following field investigations of the proposed site. The existing abandoned rail line located immediately east of the proposed site is currently owned by the DEP and is expected to become a part of the Farmington Canal Line Trail, a multi-use trail system. The proposed facility, if constructed, would be located immediately adjacent to this planned recreation corridor. Docket No. 191 Opinion May 25, 1999 Page 6 We believe insufficient buffer would exist between the proposed recreation corridor and the proposed facility, adversely affecting its recreational value. According to the State Historic Commission, the proposed project and associated electric transmission lines would have no effect on the state’s historic, architectural, or archaeological heritage. In addition, the National Register Historic District Map of the Town of Southington and the Architectural Resources Survey also did not identify the proposed site as having any historical significance. However, we believe the abandoned trolley bed stone abutment, to be removed by AES, is of interest and may offer future educational opportunities in conjunction with the proposed recreation corridor along the abandoned rail line. On May 5, 1999, the Council received 1) AES’s Comments and Corrections to [Council’s] Draft Findings of Fact Dated April 27, 1999, requesting modification of the Council’s draft Findings of Fact; and 2) AES’s request to conditionally approve the proposed facility with the diversion of water from the Farmington River and/or the Connecticut River, rather than the utilization of New Britain Water Department water. Alternately, AES seeks to reopen the hearing to enter additional evidence regarding alternative water supplies into the record. These requests seek to correct certain deficiencies identified by the Council in this application simply by changing the source of water to cool the facility. However, based on the record we do not find this proposed change sufficient to address the deficiencies in the application. The process that the Council used to make this decision is consistent with the practices of the Council, and no different from the process used for the approval of facilities in Bridgeport (Petition 377), Killingly (Docket 189), Milford (Docket 187), and Meriden (Docket 190). Indeed, we reopened the hearing to take additional evidence into the record for the Milford application to correct certain discrepancies, and we rendered decisions in all these proceedings requiring the applicants to provide detailed supporting information for the proposed projects through Development and Management Plans. Nonetheless, the problems associated with this proposed facility are significant and widespread, and cannot be corrected without a complete redesign of the proposed facility, subject to a full regulatory siting proceeding. Based on the record in this proceeding we find that the cumulative effects associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the electric generating facility at the proposed site, including effects on the natural environment; ecological integrity and balance; public welfare; scenic and recreational values; forests and parks; air and water; and wildlife are in conflict with the policies of the State concerning such effects, and are sufficient reason to deny the proposed project. We find the proposed facility, as now designed, to be incompatible with the site and the adjacent residential neighborhoods. We further find that the proposed facility is not essential or necessary for the reliability of the electric power supply of the State or for a competitive market for electricity. Therefore, we will not issue a Certificate for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a natural gas-fired electric generating facility at the proposed site located at 149 Lazy Lane in Southington, Connecticut.