Of the many valid issues surrounding RCEC, there is one of particular concern to me.

I do not believe that the potential emissions of TACs  (Toxic Air Contaminants- hazardous emissions of chemicals such as Formaldehyde, Acrolein, and many others) have been sufficiently quantified as required by California law (AB2588 “Hot Spots” program).

According to permitting documents, Calpine intends to operate the RCEC as a spot load facility which may start up and shut down an estimated 614 times per year (there is no limit to the frequency of startups and shutdowns in the permit). During startup and shutdown, when engines are not running efficiently and pollution controls are off, TAC emission rates are potentially many times higher than when the engines are running at maximum efficiency and pollution controls are activated. As a cold start can take 6 hours, and a warm start can take 3, it is reasonable to conclude that startups and shutdowns could potentially account for a large proportion of this plant’s TAC emissions.

Calpine, the BAAQMD, and the CEC have failed to quantify the TAC emissions during startup and shutdown conditions. They have only quantified TAC emissions for periods when the plant is operating at maximum efficiency. This contradicts the text of AB2588, which states that the “maximum actual emissions or maximum potential to emit” must  be quantified, and requires that worst case scenarios be taken into account.

To be more specific, I believe that there are serious shortcomings with the following assertions from Calpine re. (TAC) Toxic Air Contaminant emissions from RCEC:

While all of Western Alameda County has been identified as one of six “priority communities” within the Bay Area under proposed revisions to the Air District’s program for permitting sources of toxic air contaminants (along with (1) Concord, (2) Richmond/San Pablo, (3) San Jose, (4) Redwood City/East Palo Alto, and (5) Eastern San Francisco), the Air District _specifically found that RCEC would meet even the more stringent thresholds imposed for such “priority communities”:_

“The Air District has recently issued a proposal to establish more stringent air permitting requirements for toxic air contaminants as a measure to address cumulative air pollution in more highly impacted communities. This proposal, if adopted, would represent the most stringent air permitting requirements for TACs in the country, as far as District staff are aware. The approach involves reducing the allowable project risk thresholds by a factor of two for projects located within more highly impacted communities. The maximum project risks for Russell City Energy Center are much less than these proposed more stringent project health risk standards.”

(BAAQMD, August 3, 2009, Additional Statement of Basis, p. 97; available at: _http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Engineering/Public Notices/2009/15487/B3161_nsr_15487_fsb_080309.ashx_ <http://www.baaqmd.gov/%7E/media/Files/Engineering/Public%20Notices/2009/15487/B3161_nsr_15487_fsb_080309.ashx>.)

….

In light of the series of detailed technical analyses of the project’s emissions and potential impacts on health, there simply is no basis in science or fact for alleging that RCEC’s emissions will harm the students, faculty or staff of CLPCCD or anyone else in the community.

The Air District’s initial Statement of Basis reported that, the Air District has undertaken a detailed review of the public health impacts of the emissions authorized under the proposed permitting action, and has found that they will involve no significant public health risks.

The health hazards posed by the highest possible concentrations of air contaminants caused by the project are below what the Air District, EPA, or any other public health agency considers to be significant

To put these hazards in context, the increased cancer risk was found to be than one in a million (0.7 x 10-6). As a point of comparison, the California Air Resources Board recently found that the increased cancer risk to residents of West Oakland from truck traffic alone is 951 in a million (951 x 10-6), or more than a thousand times greater than the risk from the highest modeled exposure to RCEC’s emissions.

Fortunately for the public, it is not the responsibility of local community members (though it sure feels like it sometimes) to find a “basis in science or fact that the RCEC’s emissions will harm” the surrounding community. On the contrary, the burden rests with the RCEC and permitting agencies to find a basis in science and fact that the RCEC will operate in a manner that will not harm the community.

To succinctly summarize this issue:

1. RCEC has insisted that startups and shutdowns not be limited. The CEC and BAAQMD have sought to accommodate the RCEC in this regard, creatively applying existing regulations to meet RCEC’s objective. There are no permit restrictions that directly limit the frequency and quantity of startups and shutdowns, though there are limitations on annual criteria pollutant output.

2. Startups (which can take 3-6 hours using the less efficient RCEC technology) and shutdowns occur with emission control systems disabled, until operational conditions at the plant are suitable for their use (ie. until the plant is “warmed up”). During this period, TAC emissions may be hundreds of times higher than during normal full load operation due to incomplete combustion of fuel.

3. The CEC and BAAQMD air quality experts have expressed concerns re. unlimited startups and shutdowns, both formally and informally, due to the difficulty of determining cumulative project emissions. The parties have agreed to estimate the number of startups and shutdowns at approx 614 per year for the purposes of obtaining emissions credits.

4. When the BAAQMD/CEC performed the TAC quantification and the Health Risk Analysis, the emissions were estimated under assumptions that the plant would be operating at full load (maximum efficiency) with all emission control systems operational (ie. when TAC controls are most efficient). There is sworn testimony re. this assertion from multiple parties in both the RCEC and the Eastshore Energy Center cases. No quantification of TAC emissions, and thus no Health Risk Analysis has been performed for startup and shutdown conditions.

5. It appears that RCEC has a reason to seek an unlimited number of startups and shutdowns. It has been acknowleged by the CEC and the BAAQMD in official documentation, though curiously downplayed if not objected to outright by Calpine, that the RCEC is to be used as a spot-load facility, which will start up and shut down due to demand peaks. Demand peaks tend to occur twice per day during the hotter months. Calpine has strenuously denied that RCEC is a “peaker”, ostensibly because a plant classified as a “peaker” would be subject to limitations on startup and shutdown frequency as well as annual operating hours.

6. Despite repeated inquiries, Calpine, the BAAQMD and the CEC have completely avoided the issue of TAC emissions during startup and shutdowns. They have neither quantified these emissions, nor provided any evidence that such emissions are not significant. Given the expected high frequency of startups and shutdowns, and their potential for excessive TAC emissions relative to the baseline, the omission of this important emission source is alarming.

7. The non-regulation and non-quantification of TAC emissions during startups and shutdowns raises serious questions. The insistence of the RCEC on unlimited startups and shutdowns, and the resulting accommodation by BAAQMD and the CEC has apparently nullified the part of California environmental law which requires that the “maximum potential TAC emissions” from a facility be quantified. The appearance here is that a regulatory loophole is being exploited to allow for existing facilities, originally permitted to operate under “normal conditions”, to convert to a potentially inefficient and hazardous, though lucrative, mode of operation supplying peak load power without having to account for increased TAC releases.

8. RCEC and/or the BAAQMD could address this issue by either quantifying startup and shutdown TAC emissions and conducting a health risk analysis, or demonstrating why startup and shutdown emissions are exempt from environmental regulations. Their refusal to do either, while making affirmative statements about how their facility meets stringent TAC emissions limits, is damaging to the credibility of both organizations and is a significant source of suspicion and concern in the community. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that if RCEC and the BAAQMD quantified TAC emissions during startup and shutdowns, additional permit conditions may be required that would not be aligned with RCEC’s goals in operating the facility.

I would ask that the parties involved desist from claims that the health risk of the RCEC facility has been fully analyzed and found to be safe. Given that the analysis to-date omits this potentially significant mode of operation, such claims may be misleading, and certainly do not further the interests of the public, which will only be served by a full quantification of TAC emissions from this facility.

Please demand that the BAAQMD adhere to state law and, as a mandatory condition of issuing a permit, quantify and regulate the RCEC’s emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants during the long and potentially frequent startups and shutdowns.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is holding a public hearing about their proposed permit for the Russell City Energy Center. The permit would allow the power plant to continue on the path to approval.

The public hearing will be Wednesday, September 2, 2009 from 6:30-9:00pm at Hayward City Hall, 777 B St. in Hayward.
See the official notice for details.

Please attend this meeting if you have concerns about the impact of this power plant on Hayward. You can also submit your comments on the proposed permit in writing by September 16 to Weyman Lee, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, CA, 94109,  or by email to Weyman@baaqmd.gov.

Remember that the air district meeting for Russell City Energy Center is tomorrow, Wed, Jan 21 2009 at Hayward City Hall. See below for details.

Here is an article in the Daily Review about the process and the meeting:
Air permit sought for Hayward’s Russell City generator.

The Eastshore Energy Center may be dead but the Russell City Energy Center (Calpine)  application process is still ongoing after the case was re-opened by the EPA.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has issued a “Proposed Statement of Basis Amended Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit” (whew, that’s a mouthful!) and has invited the public to review the permit, send in written comments, and attend a public meeting about the permit. Click here for links to the public notice about the hearing and for the PSD document itself. I found the best way to view the links is to right-click and save them to my computer as they are large and hard to load.

From the notice:

The fact sheet, Statement of Basis, and proposed permit conditions are also available on the District’s website at www.baaqmd.gov. Copies of any of these documents and further information about the project can also be obtained by calling or writing to Weyman Lee, P.E., Senior Air Quality Engineer, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, CA, 94109, (415) 749-4796, weyman@baaqmd.gov. For information in Spanish, please contact Brenda Cabral at District Headquarters, (415) 749-4686, bcabral@baaqmd.gov.

The District invites all interested parties to comment on any aspect of the proposed amended PSD Permit pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Section 124.11. Comments should be made in writing and directed to Weyman Lee at the address provide above, and must be received by January 22, 2009. The District will also hold a public hearing on the project on January 21, 2009, from 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. at Hayward City Hall, located at 777 B Street, Hayward, CA, for the purpose of receiving written and oral comments regarding the proposed amended permit. District staff will be available from 6:00 to 6:30 pm to answer questions about the project informally. At 6:30 pm, the District will convene the hearing to receive formal comments from the public on the project. Speakers will be limited to 3 minutes each.

If you are concerned about the potential health and environmental impacts of this power plant that is slated to be located on our shoreline, please review the PSD, send in your comments, and attend the meeting on January 21.

This is clearly an important election for many reasons and we strongly encourage you to vote tomorrow!

In terms of the power plant issue, please remember that democratic Congressman Pete Stark and democratic Assemblymember Mary Hayashi both took action to stop the Eastshore power plant. Pete Stark wrote a letter to the CEC opposing the plant. Mary Hayashi repeatedly wrote and talked to the CEC about her opposition to the plant and even introduced a bill in the state assembly that would prevent two power plants from being built in one city if the city was opposed to it.  Please vote for Pete Stark and Mary Hayashi!

I am extraordinarily pleased to report that today the California Energy Commission voted to deny the permit to build the Eastshore Energy Center! This is the final decision, although Eastshore still can appeal the ruling.

It has been a long and hard fight with so many residents and local agencies committing their precious time and resources to investigating this project and bringing its flaws to the attention of the CEC. I am so proud of our community – it truly was an extraordinary grassroots effort. A BIG THANK YOU to everyone who participated in stopping this plant. You know who you are

Here’s an article about the decision.

The California Energy Commission is scheduled to vote on whether to approve the Eastshore Energy Center at 10am tomorrow, Oct 8, according to this article. The meeting is held in Sacramento, but you can listen to their webcast live from the CEC’s website available here.

Stay tuned!

The California Energy Commission ruled on Aug 8, 2008 that they will not reopen the evidentiary record in order for Eastshore Energy to conduct more tests. Eastshore wanted to conduct additional “flyovers” in a last minute attempt to prove the plant is not dangerous to aircraft, despite the rulings of the CEC and FAA that it would be dangerous.

Here is the CEC’s Order Denying Motion to Reopen Evidentiary Record and an article in the Daily Review, Panel Rejects Further Tests for Proposed Hayward Power Plant , about the latest ruling.

This clears the way for the CEC to make their final decision on the Eastshore plant, which will probably come sometime in the fall. Presiding Commissioner Byron has recommended that the plant be denied, but it still needs to go to a vote before the full commisssion.

Thanks to an appeal filed with the Environmental Protection Agency by Hayward resident Rob Simpson and joined by Alameda County and Chabot College, the EPA has revoked the permit issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to build Calpine’s Russell City Energy Center in Hayward.

From an article in the East Bay Business Times, EPA pulls air district permit for Calpine’s Russell City plant in Hayward July 30, 2008:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rescinded a pollution permit issued for Calpine Corp.’s Russell City Energy Center by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and ordered the air district to re-notice and re-open a public comment period before it makes a new decision on the permit.

In its 42-page remand order issued July 29, the three-judge environmental appeals board of the EPA delivered a stern rebuke to the air district over the way it complied with public notice and outreach regulations for the Hayward plant’s pollution permit, known as a Prevention of Significant Deterioration, or PSD, permit.

PSD permits are required for construction projects that may increase air pollution emissions by any significant measure, and EPA regulations lay out very specific procedural requirements for public notice and a comment period before a permit is issued.

From an article in the Daily Review, EPA revokes permit for Calpine plant, July 30, 2008:

…”The (air district) fell conspicuously short of its general outreach obligations,” stated the ruling. One such obligation is compiling a list of parties interested in the project and keeping them abreast of developments.

Those parties include the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and Chabot College, both of which joined Hayward resident Rob Simpson — who filed the appeal with the EPA — in stating they felt blindsided by the project’s approval last September….

…Simpson said that in addition to air pollution issues, other aspects of the project were never adequately addressed, such as the effect that a proposed 600-megawatt gas turbine facility near the shoreline would have on endangered species in neighboring marshlands.

While that and other issues unrelated to air quality are not affected by the particular permit revoked by the ruling, the EPA suggested other agencies may get involved.

“In order to promote administrative efficiency and prevent unnecessary expense of legal resources, the board considers it advisable to alert potential parties of several issues raised,” it stated.

Those include challenges to the plant’s conformity with the Endangered Species, Clean Water, Migratory Bird Treaty and Coastal Zone Management acts….

…Simpson maintained that if one aspect of Russell City is invalid, the whole project is put into question.

“The process is supposed to be resting on approval of that air permit,” he said. “They’re not supposed to build these things without an air permit, and they no longer have one.”

So in a nutshell, the BAAQMD never properly notified appropriate agencies and individuals about the air quality impacts of the Russell City Energy Center, which therefore prevented them from adequately participating in the process. The case will now have to be re-opened and the air pollution impacts re-examined, with greater input from the EPA and other agencies.

This Monday, July 21, 2008, the CEC will hold what will hopefully be the last evidentiary hearing regarding the Eastshore Power Plant at Hayward City Hall, Council Chambers (2nd floor), 777 B St. Hayward, CA.  Details on the meeting can be found here. The meeting will go from approximately 1-5pm with a public comment period from 6-8pm.

The same day, there will be a protest rally outside of City Hall from 5-6pm, near the fountain. Although the CEC’s proposed decision is to deny the Eastshore power plant, the decision is not yet final and Tierra is pulling out all the stops to try to get this power plant approved. This is likely to be the last chance the residents get to show the CEC that we are opposed to this power plant. Please attend this protest – bring your signs, your neighbors and your families! Free parking at the City garage – please carpool if possible.

Daily Review article about the meeting and protest