Written Statement of
Director
New York Office
African American Environmentalist Association
For the
Presented to the
Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation
September 19, 2007
My name is Dan Durett and I am the Director of the
African American Environmentalist Association New York Office (AAEA-NY). AAEA, founded in 1985, is an organization
dedicated to protecting the environment, enhancing human, animal and plant
ecologies and promoting the efficient use of natural resources. AAEA includes an African American point of view in
environmental policy decision-making and resolves environmental racism and
injustice issues through the application of practical environmental solutions. The New York Office was
established in 2003.[1]
AAEA New York supports the 20-year License Renewal for the Indian Point
nuclear power plant located in Buchanan, New York. AAEA expressed public support for nuclear power for the first
time in 2001 after a two-year internal process of studying and debating the
issue. AAEA was the first environmental organization to support nuclear
power. I am a veteran environmentalist
with 32 years experience working on environmental and energy issues.[2] My comments today address the Environmental
Report of the License Renewal Application (LRA) and other environmental issues
of concern to AAEA-NY regarding this proposed action.
AAEA-NY has members in
the New York area. Members of AAEA live
and work – and breathe the air in a Clean Air Act Nonattainment Area. Of particular import to AAEA-NY is the promotion
of clean air in African American communities.
Because nuclear power is emission-free and has a demonstrated safety
record, whereas fossil-fuel power contributes to numerous health issues,
AAEA-NY seeks to promote the safe use of nuclear power. AAEA-NY specifically supports the Indian
Point 2 and 3 nuclear power facilities because these facilities provide
significant electrical capacity to the State of New York with minimal human,
animal, air, water, and land impacts.
My comments will address specific environmental justice issues and will
expand upon the water permit issue included in Entergy’s Environment Report
(ER).
Environmental justice is defined by AAEA-NY as the fair treatment of all people regardless of race or income with respect to
environmental issues. AAEA-NY is deeply
concerned with any policy or measure that impacts the air quality of the
communities where it is based, or that affects the health of its members.
Although AAEA-NY is concerned about air quality in all areas, we are
particularly concerned with promoting clean air in African American communities
because, in many instances, those communities suffer a disproportionate amount
of total pollution.
The license renewal
of Indian Point is vitally needed because if units two and three are not
producing emission free electricity then the air pollution will increase
throughout the region. Closure of
Indian Point would result in compliance issues for the State with respect to
the federal Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan ("SIP").
Additionally, Indian Point provides reliable energy without contributing
pollutants that exacerbate asthma.
The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation’s (DEC) Environmental Justice policy states that it is the general
policy of DEC to promote environmental justice and incorporate measures for
achieving environmental justice into its programs, policies, regulations,
legislative proposals and activities. This policy is specifically intended to
ensure that DEC's environmental permit process promotes environmental justice.
(Environmental Justice Policy, Policy Statement CP-29, March 19, 2003).
In order to reduce the levels of impingement and entrainment of Hudson River fish, the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (“DEC”) Draft SPDES Permit could substantiallly limit the ability of Indian Point 2 and 3 to generate electricity, and may even lead to the closure of the facilities. Any substantial reduction in the amount of electricity generated by Indian Point 2 and 3 will spark demand for replacement electricity from nearby power plants. Unfortunately, these nearby plants are, for the most part, pollution-emitting fossil fuel plants located in New York’s low-income and minority communities. As production at these fossil-fuel plants increases, the air quality in and around these plants will further deteriorate, causing a spike in the incidences of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in the communities where these plants are based. The Draft SPDES Permit, therefore, effectively places the interests of Hudson River fish eggs and larva over the health of New York’s low-income and minority communities.
The following section specifically addresses the
implications of the water permit because the ER, at Section 4.1, Water Use
Conflicts, goes into great detail about the issue. Regarding this issue the ER states, “the vast majority of
existing nuclear stations, including those stations undergoing license renewal,
currently are or in the future will be undergoing comprehensive 316(b) review
as EPA develops final 316(b) regulations for existing facilities in response to
the recent remand of that rule.”[3] EPA suspended the Cooling Water Intake Structure
Regulations for existing large power plants on July 2, 2007. This suspension is
in response to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Riverkeeper, Inc.,
v. EPA. In the meantime, all permits for Phase II facilities
should include conditions under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act developed
on a Best Professional Judgment basis. See 40 C.F .R. § 401 .14.[4]
AAEA Has Full Party Status in
Indian Point Water Permit Process
The
ER addresses the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) status
of Indian Point. This issue is of vital
importance because an unacceptable permit could cause Entergy to close the
facility, which would exacerbate environmental injustice in the region. We are submitting this information in the
hope that NRC will utilize it for the EIS and will also see the important
environmental justice implications of this facility.
AAEA sought and received
full party status[5] in order to
bring its unique perspective to the Indian Point 2 and 3 permitting process,
and to raise the issue of environmental justice in this proceeding. In a report by the Natural Resources Council
of America entitled: “Environmental Stewardship for the 21st
Century: Opportunities and Actions for Improving Cultural Diversity in
Conservation Organizations and Programs,” it was found that African
Americans comprise only 4% of the boards of directors and only 6% of employees
at 61 surveyed conservation organizations.
From this, it is clear that the African American perspective has
heretofore been lacking from the environmental movement.[6]
The
need for greater involvement from the African American community in the DEC
permitting process has been recognized by the DEC itself. In September 1999,
then DEC Commissioner John P. Cahill announced the creation of DEC’s Office of
Environmental Justice. This
Office, which implements the DEC’s Environmental Justice Program, seeks to
“ensure that local communities are given an opportunity to express their
concerns and that those concerns are considered when making decisions which
potentially impact the environment and public health.”[7] On March 19, 2003, the DEC issued Policy
Statement CP-29: Environmental Justice and Permitting. In issuing this policy, the DEC stated that
the policy was meant to “promote the fair involvement of all people in the DEC
environmental permit process,” and further stated that:
It
is the general policy of DEC to promote environmental justice and incorporate
measures for achieving environmental justice into its programs, policies,
regulations, legislative proposals and activities. This policy is specifically intended to ensure that DEC’s
environmental permit process promotes environmental justice.
Allowing
AAEA to participate in the Indian Point 2 and 3 permitting process will achieve
the DEC’s goal of ensuring that the concerns of local communities, particularly
low-income and minority communities be considered when making decisions that
impact the environment and public health of these communities.
Fossil-Fuel Power Causes Serious Adverse Health
Effects
In
1999, coal-fired power plants in the United States emitted into the environment
11.3 million tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO2”), a
criteria air pollutant that is correlated to asthma and impaired lung
functions, 6.5 million tons of nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) which, when combined with other pollutants and
sunlight, forms ozone, another lung irritant linked to asthma, and 1.9 billion
tons of carbon dioxide (“CO2”), yet
another contributor to increased ozone levels and global climate change.[8] This equates to approximately 60% of all SO2 emissions, 25% of all NOx emissions, and 32% of all CO2 emissions nationwide.[9]
These
and other airborne pollutants emitted by fossil-fuel power stations may have a
direct and significant effect on human health.
In a study by Abt Associates, one of the largest for-profit government
and business research consulting firms in the world, it was found that over
30,000 deaths each year are attributable to air pollution from U.S. power
plants.[10] Another study found that air pollution from
power plants was a contributing factor to higher infant mortality rates and
higher incidences of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (“SIDS”).[11] Research has further shown that pollutants
from fossil-fuel power plants form tiny particles (called fine particulate
matter) that are linked to diseases of both the respiratory and cardiovascular
systems.[12]
Not
surprisingly, air pollution has been characterized as one of the largest
threats to public health.[13]
The Negative Health
Effects of Fossil-Fuel Power Are Borne Disproportionately by African Americans
Sadly,
these serious health effects disproportionately fall on the shoulders of
low-income and minority communities, including African American
communities. For instance, the
percentage of African Americans and Hispanics living in areas that do not meet
national standards for air quality is considerably higher than that of whites.[14] Correspondingly, respiratory ailments affect
African Americans at rates significantly higher than whites. Asthma attacks, for example, send African
Americans to the emergency room at three times the rate of whites (174.3 visits
per 10,000 people for African Americans versus 59.4 visits per 10,000 people
for whites), and African Americans are hospitalized for asthma at more than
three times the rate of whites (35.6 admissions per 10,000 people for African
Americans versus 10.6 admissions for every 10,000 people for whites).[15] Similarly, the death rate from asthma for
African Americans is almost three times that of whites (38.7 deaths per million
versus 14.2 deaths per million).[16]
New York’s Minorities Pay the Price for Fossil-Fuel Air
Pollution
New
York is no exception to this national crisis.
In New York City, it is estimated that there are 2,290 deaths, 1,580
hospitalizations, 546 asthma-related emergency room visits, 1,490 cases of
chronic bronchitis, and 46,200 asthma attacks yearly attributable to power
plant pollution.[17] The New York City area has also been ranked
as one of the top five U.S. metropolitan areas for particulate air pollution.[18] And again, these adverse effects
disproportionately affect minority communities. In one study, nonwhites in New York City were found to be
hospitalized twice as many times as whites on days when ozone levels were high.[19] Another study found that, of the 23 counties
in New York State that fail to meet Federal air pollution standards, 37.7% of
them are populated by people of color.[20]
That African Americans
and other minorities are disproportionately affected by air pollution in New
York is not surprising when considering the fact that the majority of
air-polluting power plants in the New York metropolitan area are located in
African American and other minority communities. Based on figures from the 2000 U.S. Census, only 12.3% of New
York State is identified as being African American, and only 29.4% of the total
population is classified as a minority.
However, in communities that are predominantly minority, such as Queens,
the Bronx, and Brooklyn, there are a disproportionate number of fossil-fuel
power plants emitting criteria air pollutants.
For example, there are approximately 1,563,400 people of color, 217,247
children living in poverty, and 40,248 children who suffer from pediatric
asthma within 30 miles of the Lovett facility, a coal-fired power plant
bordering the New York City metropolitan area.[21] In the Bronx, which is 35.6% African
American and 88% minority, there are two power plants, Harlem River Yards and
Hell’s Gate. In Brooklyn, which is
36.4% African American and 64.2% minority, there are seven power plants, the 23rd
and 3rd Plant, Brooklyn Navy Yard, Gowanus, Hudson Ave., Narrows,
the North First St. Plant, and Warbasse Cogen.
In Queens, which is 20% African American and 63.2% minority, there are
six power plants, Astoria, Poletti, Far Rockaway, JFK Cogeneration, Ravenswood,
and the Vernon Blvd. Plant. Queens is
also ranked among the worst 10% of U.S. Counties in terms of its exposure to
criteria air pollutants, and is one of two city boroughs that violate federal
standards.[22] In the Air Quality in Queens County Report,
it is stated that:
The
concentration of generating capacity in Northwest Queens is exceptionally high
for such a densely populated area. In
addition, this community includes a high percentage of low-income people and
persons of color. These demographics
suggest that “environmental justice” concepts and policies should be taken into
account when considering options for addressing air quality in Queens and in
considering the siting of further sources of air pollution. The steam generating units in Queens are
responsible for a large percent of the NOx, SO2, and CO2
emitted in Queens.
In total, there are 24 power plants in
the New York metropolitan area, only a handful of which are in areas where
minorities do not comprise the majority of the population. One of these is the Indian Point power generating
facility.[23]
Lost Production From Indian Point Will Be Replaced By
In-City and Other Nearby Facilities
If generation at Indian
Point 2 and 3 were to be significantly limited or were to cease altogether, the
lost electricity would most likely be replaced by nearby facilities, including the
above-referenced in-city facilities and the Lovett coal-burning facility. For instance, in a study by Synapse Energy
Economics, Inc., dated November 3, 2003 and entitled, The Impact of converting the Cooling systems at Indian Point Units 2
and 3 on Electrical System Reliability (attached hereto as Exhibit D),
Synapse finds that New York electricity generators, particularly in-city
generators, have excess capacity which would supplant capacity losses at Indian
Point if Indian Point were brought offline.
Similarly, in an August 2002 study by the TRC Environmental Group
entitled, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2,
LLC and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC Emissions Avoidance Study (the “TRC Report”), TRC concluded that “it is
reasonable to assume that the majority of lost output [(if Indian Point were
brought offline)] would be made up by increased generation of units nearest to
the New York City/Westchester load pocket.”
Increasing
Generation at Facilities Near Indian Point Will Increase Air Pollution in the
Communities Where These Facilities Are Based
The
TRC Report further found that, if Indian Point is brought offline, the air
quality in New York would decrease dramatically. For instance, if the gap created by Indian Point’s closure were
to be filled by the power plants located in New York City, almost all of which
are in predominantly minority communities, CO2 plant emissions would increase by 101% (or
12,494,172 tons), SO2 plant
emissions would increase by 106% (or 8,020 tons), and NOx plant emissions would increase by 105% (or 16,107
tons). Even if replacement electricity
were spread out more broadly, to include all of the Hudson Valley and New York
City plants, CO2 plant emissions would
still increase by 57% (to 13,686,648 tons), SO2 plant emissions would increase by 62% (to 35,961
tons), and NOx emissions would increase
by 57% (to 20,258 tons).
And
as the level of air pollution increases, so do the incidences of death and
respiratory and cardiovascular ailments.
For instance, in the National Morbidity and Mortality Air Pollution
Study (“NMMAPS”), a team of investigators from Johns Hopkins University and the
Harvard School of Public Health found, among other things, strong evidence
linking daily increases in particle pollution to increases in death in the
largest U.S. cities.[24] Links have also been found between fine
particle levels and increased hospital admissions for asthma, cardiovascular
disease, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.[25] Stated bluntly in the Air Quality in Queens
County Report, “Epidemiological studies tell us that on days when air pollution
levels are high, more people get sick or die
Based
on the above data and studies, it is clear that if Indian Point 2 and 3 were to
be brought offline, forced to close, or if their production were limited, the
void in electricity production would be filled by power plants located in
minority communities, with a corresponding increase in the rates of asthma and
other respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and even infant mortality
in these communities.
The Benefits of Indian Point 2 and 3
The
Indian Point facilities, located in the affluent and predominantly white
Westchester County, have a combined generating capacity of approximately 2000
megawatts (MW). The facilities provide
approximately 20-30% of the electricity for New York City and its northern
suburbs. And, unlike New York’s
fossil-fuel burning facilities, Indian Point 2 and 3 do not pollute the air.
Draft
SPDES Permit Hinders Indian Point’s Ability to Produce Non-Air-Polluting
Electricity
Several conditions of the DEC’s Draft SPDES Permit for
Indian Point 2 and 3 significantly limit Indian Point’s ability to generate
electricity for the State of New York.
For example, Special Condition 28 of the Draft Permit requires the
construction of cooling towers. NYSDEC issued a draft SPDES
permit for IP1, IP2, and IP3 in 2003 that, among other conditions, requires the
design and, if appropriate, the installation of closed-cycle cooling systems
for IP2 and IP3 if the site seeks and receives from NRC license renewals for
IP2 and IP3.
AAEA understands that,
under conservative estimates, it would take approximately 10 months of Indian
Point being offline for a closed-cycle cooling system to be installed. AAEA further understands that the costs of
installing cooling towers are sufficiently prohibitive so that Indian Point’s
owners may elect to shut down the plants rather than invest in the
retrofit. Either way, the results will
be devastating in terms of the pollution-related health effects when New York’s
non-clean burning plants scramble to replace the power lost by Indian Point 2
and 3. And since most of these plants
are in African American and minority communities, the bulk of the adverse
health effects – including asthma and other respiratory diseases,
cardiovascular disorders, and even infant mortality – will be borne by these
communities. For this reason, AAEA
objects to any provision of the Draft SPDES Permit for Indian Point 2 and 3
that imposes any significant limit on the facilities’ ability to generate
clean-burning electricity, including Special Condition 28.
DEC Did Not Consider Environmental
Justice in the Draft Permit
The
NRC is required to consider environmental justice in the preparation of an environmental
impact statement. Unfortunately, the
State of New York did not consider environmental justice in the current
permit. Moreover, DEC is imposing a
structure that could lead Entergy to close the facility. In the Draft SPDES Permit, the DEC concludes
that cooling towers are the “Best Technology Available” (“BTA”) to maximize
fish protection at Indian Point.
However, in making a BTA determination, DEC was required not only to
attempt to maximize fish protection, but also to minimize or avoid “other
impacts … to the ‘maximum extent practicable’ to satisfy SEQR as well as CWA §
316(b).” See Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”). See also 6 NYCRR § 704.5 (“The location,
design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures, in
connection with point source thermal discharges, shall reflect the best
technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact”)
(emphasis added); (“closed-cycle
systems do not come without impacts, and those potential impacts must also be
weighed for each site”); (“there are certain expenses associated with
installing closed-cycle cooling”).
Despite these acknowledgments, the DEC issued the Draft SPDES Permit
without addressing the environmental justice impacts, which its decision would
entail, particularly the significant adverse impacts that will result from a
shift in power production from Indian Point 2 and 3 to existing fossil-fuel
facilities. The DEC’s failure to
consider these “other impacts” violates the SEQRA, 6 NYCRR § 704.5, and rendered
the FEIS and the Draft SPDES Permit null and void.
AAEA MET THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR PARTY STATUS
6
NYCRR § 624.5(b) allows a person to obtain party status by timely filing a
petition, (i) identifying the proposed party together with the name(s) of the
person or persons who will act as representative of the party; (ii) identifying
the petitioner’s environmental interest in the proceeding[26];
(iii) identifying any interest relating to statutes administered by the
department relevant to the project; (iv) identifying whether the petition is
for full party or amicus status; and (v) identifying the precise grounds for
opposition or support. Additionally, a
petitioner must (i) identify an issue for adjudication which meets the criteria
of 6 NYCRR § 624.4(c) and (ii) present an offer of proof specifying the
witness(es), the nature of the evidence the person expects to present and the
grounds upon which the assertion is made with respect to that issue. AAEA’s Petition for Full Party Status met
these criteria. As discussed above,
this Petition was brought by AAEA, and the President of AAEA, Norris McDonald,
will act as its representative.
Second,
AAEA has a strong environmental interest in this proceeding because AAEA is an
environmental action group, with a chapter in Long Island, New York, with a
stated goal of promoting clean air in low-income and minority communities by,
among other things, supporting the safe use of nuclear energy. AAEA also has approximately 1,000 members in
the New York area whose air quality may be impacted by the DEC’s Permit for
Indian Point 2 and 3. Further, AAEA has
publicly supported Indian Point 2 and 3, due to its positive impact on New
York’s air quality, for several years.
For instance, in May 2002, AAEA President Norris McDonald presented
testimony before the Committee on
Environmental Protection in opposition to Chairman James F.
Gennaro’s Resolution 64, which called for the immediate
shutdown of Indian Point. AAEA also
presented testimony on February 28, 2003, before the New York City Council’s
Committee on Environmental Protection, again opposing efforts to shut down
Indian Point. And most recently, AAEA
participated in the DEC’s legislative hearing relating to Indian Point’s Draft
SPDES Permit.
Third,
AAEA has an interest relating to the statutes administered by DEC, namely, AAEA
seeks to ensure that those statutes are interpreted consistent with the DEC’s
policy goal of promoting environmental justice. AAEA also has an interest in ensuring that, when DEC is required
by statute or regulation to weigh adverse environmental impacts, it factor
environmental justice into the calculation.
In addition, AAEA believes that the reference to adverse environmental
impacts in the regulation at issue, 6 NYCRR § 704.5, the best technology
assessment, implicates the environmental considerations that AAEA has raised
herein.
Fourth,
AAEA’s Petition made clear that it was seeking full party status.
Finally,
AAEA’s Petition made clear that it opposes the DEC’s Draft SPDES Permit for Indian
Point 2 and 3 to the extent the Permit imposes substantial limits on the
facilities’ ability to generate electricity, as these limitations will
translate into increased levels of generation – and increased levels of air emissions – at nearby facilities, most
of which are fossil-fuel facilities located in or near minority and low-income
communities.
AAEA’S ISSUES FOR ADJUDICATION
In
order to qualify for party status, AAEA identified substantive and significant
issues for adjudication, and presented an offer of proof specifying the
witnesses and testimony it expects to present, and the grounds upon which the
assertion is made with respect to the issue.
Under 6 NYCRR § 624.4(c)(2), an issue is substantive “if there is
sufficient doubt about the applicant’s ability to meet statutory or regulatory
criteria applicable to the project, such that a reasonable person would require
further inquiry.” An issue is
significant “if it has the potential to result in the denial of a permit, a
major modification to the proposed project or the imposition of significant
permit conditions in addition to those proposed in the draft permit.” 6 NYCRR § 624.4(c)(3).
AAEA submitted the following issues for adjudication:
(1)
Whether the DEC fully
considered – as required – all adverse environmental impacts in formulating the
Draft SPDES Permit for Indian Point 2 and 3, including air impacts on minority
communities?
(2)
Whether the DEC would
have issued a different permit had it adequately considered the negative
impacts on air quality in low-income and minority communities that will result
from any substantial reduction in generation at Indian Point 2 and 3?
(3)
Whether the failure to
consider all adverse environmental impacts in formulating the Draft SPDES
Permit for Indian Point 2 and 3, including air impacts in minority communities,
renders the Permit unsupportable?
AAEA’s issues for adjudication are substantive, given
that they call into question the legality of the DEC’s FEIS and Draft SPDES
Permit for Indian Point 2 and 3, raise important public health and
environmental justice concerns, and challenge the Draft Permit’s compliance
with the SEQRA and 6 NYCRR § 704.5 requirement that in issuing a permit, DEC
consider all adverse environmental
impacts. AAEA’s issues for
adjudication are also significant because they ultimately call for a major
modification to the DEC’s SPDES Permit for Indian Point 2 and 3, namely,
eliminating those provisions of the Permit which would result in significant
reductions in generation at Indian Point 2 and 3, including Special Condition
28 (the cooling tower requirement).
Recommendation
AAEA-NY wants the DEC to eliminate the cooling tower
provision in a water permit for Indian Point.
Such a permit would eliminate the issue of possible closure of the plant
and provide a more clear-cut status for NRC in considering the license
renewal. Resolution of this situation
will also provide a simpler situation for describing the position environmental
justice impacts provided by Indian Point in the EIS.
Conclusion
AAEA New York supports the 20-year License Renewal
(ESP) for the Indian Point nuclear power plant located in Buchanan, New
York. We support this renewal because
the facility is a positive structure for mitigating ground level air pollution,
global warming and environmental injustice.
[3] ER Section 4.2.5 Analysis of Environmental Impact, Section 4.2.5.1 Background
[4]http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/316b , Federal Register Notice (July 09, 2007) Implementation Memo (PDF) (1 page, 72K, About PDF; March 20, 2007)
[6] See also AAEA’s Environmental Group
Diversity Report Card 2003, available at:
http://www.aaenvironment.com/EnviroGroupReportCard.htm.
[7] http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ej/ejprogram.html. (Last visited Feb. 10, 2004.)
[8] See Rachel H. Cease, Adverse Health Impacts of Grandfathered Power Plants and the Clean Air Act: Time to Teach Old Power Plants New Technology, 17 J. Nat. Resources & Envtl. L. 157, 158 (2002-2003); Martha H. Keating, Air Injustice, at 4 (October 2002) (attached hereto as Exhibit B).
[9] 17 J. Nat. Resources & Envtl. L. at 158.
[10] Id. at 159.
[11] See Martha H. Keating, Air Injustice, at 3 (October 2002).
[12] See id. at 4. See also Air Quality in Queens County: Opportunities for Cleaning Up the Air in Queens County and Neighboring Regions, at S-6, Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. (May 2003) (“Air Quality in Queens County”) (“Epidemiological studies tell us that on days when air pollution levels are high, more people get sick or die.”) (available at http://www.synapse-energy.com/Downloads/Synapse-report-queens-air-quality-exec-summary-05-29-2003.pdf); Children at Risk: How Pollution from Power Plants Threatens the Health of America’s Children, at 2, Clean Air Task Force (May 2002) (“Power plant emissions and their byproducts form particulate matter, ozone smog and air toxics. These pollutants are associated with respiratory hospitalizations, lost school days due to asthma attacks, low birth weight, stunted lung growth and tragically, even infant death.”) (available at http://cta.policy.net/fact/children/).
[13] Allison L. Russell, Urban Pollutants: A Review and Annotated Bibliography, at 3, New York City Environmental Justice Alliance 2000 (available at http://www.nyceja.org/pdf/Urban.pdf).
[14] See id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] See Death, Disease & Dirty Power: Mortality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution from Power Plants, at 24, Clean Air Task Force (October 2000) (“Death, Disease & Dirty Power”) (Exhibit C) (available at http://cta.policy.net/fact/mortality/mortalitylowres.pdf).
[18] See New York’s Dirty Power Plants, Clear the Air – the National Campaign Against Dirty Power (available at http://cta.policy.net/relatives/17841.pdf). The Air Quality in Queens County Report states that “New York City … [is] burdened with significant air quality problems” and “[t]he US EPA has determined that the NY metropolitan area … is in ‘severe nonattainment’ for ozone.” Id. at S-5.
[19]See Martha H. Keating, Air Injustice, at 4 (October 2002).
[20] See Clear the Air: People of Color in Non-Attainment Counties (available at http://cta.policy.net/fact/injustice/injustice_non_attainment.pdf).
[21] See Clear the Air: People of Color Living Within 30 Miles of a Specific Coal-Fired Power Plant (available at http://cta.policy.net/relatives/20121.pdf); Clear the Air, Power Plant Pollution Threatens the Health of New York’s Children (June 11, 2002) (available at http://cta.policy.net/relatives/20121.pdf).
[22] See Air Quality in Queens County, at
S-5.
[23] All population data compiled from the 2000 U.S. Census.
[24] Cited in Death Disease & Dirty Power, at 14.
[25] Id.
[26] Although the DEC’s regulations do not define the term “environmental interest,” the DEC has held that this term should be applied broadly. See In the Matter of the Application of Stissing Valley Farms, Inc., 1996 WL 33142551, at *3 (N.Y. Dept. Env. Conserv. Nov. 4, 1996).