Mark J. Cool 250 Fire Tower Rd. Falmouth, MA 02574 December 5, 2011 Kenneth Kimmell, Commissioner Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection One Winter Street Boston MA 02108 Re: Comments on Commissioner Kimmell’s Action Plan for Regulatory Reform at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Dear Commissioner Kimmell, Please find my comments regarding the proposed expansion of the categories of “limited projects” in the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA- MGL Chapter 131 § 40) and its regulations (310 CMR 10). · The construction of a renewable energy project does not fall into the same category as the current five types of projects now covered by the “limited project” exemption of the wetlands regulations. These “limited projects” are 1. closure of solid waste landfills, 2. airport safety, 3. dam safety, 4. development of safe drinking water supplies from groundwater, and 5. cleanup of releases of oil and hazardous materials. · According to the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act the common factors in all five “limited projects” are their importance to the protection of public health, safety and/or the environment. The construction of an industrial wind turbine is not important to the protection of public health, safety and/or the environment. In fact an industrial wind turbine project maybe the antithesis of the protection of these factors. · You’ve stated that giving renewable energy projects a “limited project” status under the WPA “will benefit the environment by creating a more streamlined and predictable permitting pathway for projects that help improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and boost the green economy. I disagree that renewable energy projects will improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and boost the green economy. · Industrial wind turbines do not improve air quality, nor do they reduce greenhouse gas emissions because ----- Any calculation of the CO2 emissions reduced by wind generation must take into account both the fuel that is replaced and the compensating conventional fuel generation. Such a calculation, involving a randomly intermittent renewable like wind, cannot be done using a single emissions factor. With these ideas informing analysis, performance data from Britain, Denmark, Ireland, and Germany shows that “a substantial part of the theoretical CO2 saving does not accrue in practice. In some circumstances there may be only minimal benefit.” [White, David, Reduction in Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Estimating the Potential Contribution from Wind-Power, commissioned and published by the Renewable Energy Foundation, December 2004. White has earned BSc, C Eng, F I and Chem E. degrees. This is perhaps the best comprehensive analysis of the limitations of industrial wind energy to date.] · Industrial wind turbines do not boost the green economy because ---- In March 2009, researchers Gabriel Calzada Alvarez and colleagues at the Universidad, Rey Juan Carlos released a study examining the economic and employment effects of Spain's aggressive push into renewables. What they found confounds the usual green-job rhetoric: [ "Study of the Effects of Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources" (draft, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, March 2009), ] • Since 2000, Spain spent 571,138 euros on each green job, including subsidies of more than 1 million euros per job in the wind industry. • The programs creating those jobs destroyed nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy (2.2 jobs destroyed for every green job created). • The high cost of electricity mainly affects production costs and levels of employment in metallurgy, nonmetallic mining and food processing, and beverage and tobacco industries. • Each "green" megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs elsewhere in the economy on average. • These costs do not reflect Spain's particular approach but rather the nature of schemes to promote renewable energy sources. Spain has found its foray into renewable energy to be unsustainable. No present projection indicates the trend shall be any different in the U.S. · If the wind turbines don’t get a “limited project” status and an industrial wind turbine project cannot be sited because the local conservation commission declines to issue a permit, the Commissioner can always issue a variance. This is a clear “Home-Rule” violation. · The areas most suitable for wind development in Massachusetts - the Cape, North and South Shores, and the Berkshires - are also the areas where the environment, and specifically wetland resource areas, are very fragile. Therefore greater care must be taken to make sure that the resource areas are protected. · You’ve stated that putting renewable energy projects in the “limited project” category will “benefit the environment by creating a more streamlined and predictable permitting pathway.” This is an outrageously misleading statement. Putting renewable energy projects in the “limited project” category will create a more streamlined and predictable permitting pathway, not at all for the benefit, rather, for the decided derogation to the environment. Respectfully, Mark J. Cool From: Goodman, Abbie To: Commissioner, MassDEP (DEP) Subject: Comments: Commissioner"s Draft Action Plan for Regulatory Reform Date: Monday, December 05, 2011 4:53:27 PM From the American Council of Engineering Companies of Massachusetts MEMORANDUM TO: Commissioner Kenneth L. Kimmell, Department of Environmental Protection Abbie Goodman, Executive Director, ACEC/MA ([email protected]) FROM: John M. Schmid, PE, LEED AP, Chair, ACEC/MA Private Sector Committee Francis Yanuskiewicz, Co-Chair, ACEC/MA Environmental Affairs Committee DATE: December 5, 2011 DEP Regulatory Reform RE: Draft Action Plan, dated October 24, 2011 ACEC/MA thanks you for the opportunity to review and comment on the October 24, 2011 Draft Action Plan for Regulatory Reform at DEP. We also appreciate your discussion of the pertinent plan issues and some of your goals for DEP going forward at the ACEC/MA Environmental Affairs Committee Meeting on October 26, 2011. Overall, we concur with the plan as presented, and understand the challenge that you have in meeting environmental protection goals in the face of decreasing budgets and staff. “Doing more with less” is a reality for the engineering community and to our clients. We offer the following comments to assist you in finalizing this plan. 1. ACEC/MA generally supports the changes proposed for the Waste Site Cleanup program (as related to the MCP program) as they should be a benefit to clients and project progress. (i.e. changes such as Simplifying Activity & Use Limitations (AULs) and Streamlining Tier Classification, and Revising the Numerical Ranking System (NRS)). ACEC/MA suggests that Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) continue to take steps to prioritize the most serious Tier I sites, regardless of any such modifications to current processes. There is general agreement that the AUL process and the Tier Classification/NRS need to be simplified. Simplifying the AUL process will benefit consultants as well as clients through reduced consulting fees. There is often significant time spent “chasing” the existing AUL regulations. 2. ACEC/MA generally supports the proposal to privatize the annual compliance inspection of Solid Waste Landfills by creating a list of certified solid waste inspectors, to whom DEP would annually assign a specified number of random inspections of 24 active landfills (at permit holder’s expense). ACEC/MA recommends that the list of certified inspectors include MA Professional Engineers (PE) with prerequisite solid waste experience, as a minimum. 4. ACEC/MA supports the proposal for only targeted review of Wetlands permits and for immediate issuance of a Wetland File No. by the DEP. These will help avoid delays/delayed hearings. 5. ACEC/MA supports the proposal to establish a Wetlands General Permit for certain activities. ACEC/MA suggests that DEP roll out such a program with an educational outreach to all local Conservation Commissions (and their agents) to encourage them to follow suit as much as possible. Consistency with state-wide standards at the local level, based on clear state guidance, would be a real plus! 6. ACEC/MA supports the proposed exemption for wetlands “resource areas” created by man-made stormwater retention basins built before 1996, if the stormwater system meets the DEP’s performance standards. ACEC/MA recommends that the DEP considers allowing pre-existing man-made features that do not meet current DEP performance standards, be exempt if an owner were to retrofit such features so as to meet the standards. Perhaps such retrofit work could be done under a WPA Determination of Applicability, thereby avoiding full wetlands permit filing? 5. ACEC/MA supports “Elimination of Sewer Extension & Connection Approvals” ACEC/MA recommends that the DEP issue a “guidance document” for use by local authorities, and hopefully all local authorities would be required to apply the same standards and implement them using accepted, published guidelines for consistency across all DEP regions. 6. ACEC/ MA supports DEP stepping away from Title 5 septic system variances as this will save time for applicants. ACEC/MA recommends that the DEP reconsider delegating “shared system” approvals to municipalities. In ACEC/MA’s experience, some local Boards of Health and Health Agents are not well equipped to handle these somewhat more complex projects, and they may impose unreasonable restrictions as a result.