Danvers Officials Scrutinize Proposed Peabody Generator Plans

DANVERS, MA — State Rep. Sally Kerans (D-Danvers) repeatedly pressed utility officials on the potential environmental and health impacts of a proposed gas and oil surge capacity generator at the Waters Rivers substation on "already burdened" Danvers and Peabody residents during a meeting at Danvers Town Hall on Friday.

Kerans was one of about a half dozen public officials who joined the Danvers Select Board in the two-hour meeting with representatives from the Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company. The meeting was broadcast on Danvers Community Access Television’s YouTube channel but was not open to the public for comment.

Similar to the four-hour forum at Peabody’s Torigian Center on June 22 — which was open to the public and allowed comment — MMWEC officials spent the Danvers meeting citing the economic and reliability benefits of what they call the most modern, efficient technology available for the proposed surge capacity power generator.

MMWEC officials reiterated their claims that the 55-megawatt generator in Project 2015A is expected to run at or less than 239 hours a year, emits 94 percent fewer emissions than similar resources in the region and has the potential to help reduce carbon emissions since the more efficient generator will reduce the need to use less-efficient capacity generators, such as the 5-megawatt Marblehead generator that was pressed into service during this past week's extreme heatwave.

But Kerans repeatedly pushed back on the proposal — calling on the MMWEC to voluntarily commission an independent environmental impact study and questioning why surrounding Danvers and Peabody neighborhoods are being asked to house a third generator that benefits public utilities across the state.

"(The Peabody site) is already burdened," Kerans said. "Is it really the only way to get capacity or is it because it's the cheapest way? How much does one neighborhood have to endure? Especially when we can get that need met another way?"

MMWEC allowed the surge capacity needs could potentially be met through other means, but that a comprehensive process that began six years ago determined that the infrastructure of the Peabody site did make it the most cost-effective for ratepayers and least disruptive for the environment — largely because it already supports two other generators.

"This was by far the site that had the least intrusiveness to put in a generating unit," said Ed Kaczenski, a former MMWEC director and current consultant, adding that sites were examined in Fall River, New Bedford and Plymouth, but that they would have involved taking up green space while Peabody was already a "fenced-in, disrupted area."

"MMWEC admitted that they chose this site because everything is already in place and it's cheaper to add a third (generator),” Kerans told Patch following the meeting. "This plant will affect two overburdened neighborhoods in Danvers and Peabody.

"If MMWEC has any respect for our communities they will pause this and agree to both a community health impact assessment and an environmental review."

MMWEC spokesperson Kate Roy told Patch Friday afternoon that all comments and feedback from the Danvers meeting will be reviewed and discussed with participating light departments.

The 2015A Project was placed on a 30-day minimum pause on May 11 amid growing public concerns from elected officials, climate advocacy groups and nearby residents about the project that went through a years-long approval and funding process with little pushback.

Roy told Patch on Thursday that the agency faces a deadline next week with the state Department of Public Utilities to determine whether it plans to resume the building process or continue the pause, and if so, deliver a timetable for how much longer the pause will last.

MMWEC officials on Friday tried to assure Danvers officials that the proposal exceeds all requirements for mitigating noise and pollution levels for the nearest Peabody (1,150 feet away) and Danvers (2,300 feet away) residents.

They said the estimated 239 hours of use per year was "conservative" based on an average of the past six years and would likely be required less — although the generator would be permitted to be used up to 1,250 hours per year.

They said the primary power will be natural gas with diesel oil as a secondary power source not to exceed 250 hours of use per year.

Officials said alternatives — such as battery power — were examined, but are not yet efficient enough to handle the capacity needs since batteries can only be used for four hours at a time — the average length of a surge event, officials said, is seven hours — and those lithium batteries would take up six times as much space while being twice as expensive to operate.

Kerans said cost should not be the only driver of the project.

"Can you meet capacity demands without building a plant on this site?" she questioned. "There is the price and then there's the public health."

The Peabody Board of Health sent Gov. Charlie Baker a letter on July 8 requesting a full Environmental Impact Report and a comprehensive health impact assessment that defines the impact on vulnerable populations and how that impact will be monitored and mitigated throughout the life of the generator.

"The Environmental Justice Policy of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs calls for 'meaningful involvement' of affected persons and (environmental justice) communities," Peabody Director of Health Sharon Cameron and Dr. Leigh Ann Mansberger wrote in the letter, obtained by Patch, "as well as the 'equitable distribution of energy and environmental benefits and burdens.'

"We understand the benefits of this proposed plant in terms of ensuring adequate energy capacity in the region, with stable and known costs. However, we believe that it is impossible to understand the potential burdens of this project, particularly on vulnerable and disproportionately-impacted residents, without a full Environmental Impact Report and comprehensive health impact assessment."

Did you find this article useful? Invite a friend to subscribe to Patch.

(Scott Souza is a Patch field editor covering Beverly, Danvers, Marblehead, Peabody, Salem and Swampscott. He can be reached at Scott.Souza@Patch.com. Twitter: @Scott_Souza.)

More Patch Coverage: Peabody Power Plant Opposition Delivers Petition Ahead Of Forum

Power Company Slams Brakes On Proposed Peabody Plant

Peabody Power Plant Opponents Cheer Pause In Project

North Shore Officials, Peabody Light Spar Over Proposed Gas Plant