Code of Massachusetts Regulations › 980 CMR - ENERGY FACILITIES SITING COUNCIL › Title 980 CMR 9.00 - Coastal Zone Facility Site Selection, Evaluation, And Assessment › Section 9.02 - Site Evaluation and Comparison

Current through Register 1525, July 5, 2024
(1)
Evaluation and Comparison.
(a) Where a facility is proposed for coastal
			 siting, the lead company or petitioner must propose, evaluate, and compare at
			 least one alternative site. In the case of a facility which is claimed to be
			 coastally dependent, at least one alternative site in the coastal zone must be
			 proposed, evaluated, and compared. In the case of a facility which is not
			 coastally dependent, the alternative to be proposed, evaluated and compared
			 shall be inland of the coastal zone. Any alternative shall be reasonably
			 determined and demonstrated to be capable of development and licensing or
			 approval by all federal, state, regional and local agencies. The evaluation
			 will include a justification of the necessity for or advantage of coastal
			 siting together with an explicit definition of the process developed to compare
			 alternative sites.
(b) The lead
			 company or petitioner will complete and provide a following site evaluation for
			 each alternative site as set forth below.
1.
			 Identification of the site relative to the areas of critical environmental
			 concern and significant resource areas;
2. Identification and evaluation of
			 Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program policies and regulatory
			 requirements which apply to each site;
3. Identification of statutory and regulatory
			 citations to all federal, state, regional, and local licenses, approvals,
			 permits, and authorizations required for construction, operation, and
			 decommissioning of the proposed facility;
4. Identification of relevant facilities and
			 resources which may be in the national interest, including potential
			 competition or conflicts among or between such facilities and resources;
			 and
5. Submission upon request of
			 the Council of complete and current copies of all engineering, design, safety,
			 environmental analyses, reports, tests, applications, approvals, licenses, and
			 decisions which have been submitted to or issued by any federal, state,
			 regional, or local agency in connection with the site or use.
6. Environmental description of each site and
			 its vicinity, including a review of significant land, air, and water use;
			 ecology; geology; hydrology; meteorology;
7. Environmental analysis of construction
			 impact;
8. Environmental analysis
			 of facility operation including land, air and water use ecological impact; heat
			 dissipation; waste, chemical, and biocide discharge; health and safety; visual
			 and aesthetic impact; decommissioning; and
9. Socioeconomic impact analysis including
			 measures to mitigate adverse impact during construction, operation, and
			 decommissioning;
10. Summary
			 analysis of all measures to be taken to comply with land, air, and water use
			 and ecological standards, policies, regulations, bylaws, and statutes of the
			 Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
(c) The environmental evaluation must be site
			 specific but may be premised upon standard facility design parameters rather
			 than upon specific facility design. The evaluation must be substantively
			 complete before formal review of a proposed facility will begin. The analysis
			 may employ secondary sources such as existing studies and reports completed by
			 public or private agencies. All studies, reports, and analyses employed in the
			 preparation of the evaluation and comparison are to be provided to the Siting
			 Council.
(d) The Siting Council may
			 waive or modify the requirements of this rule in the case of:
1. a proposed facility which is ancillary to
			 an existing use and which does not substantially alter the environmental impact
			 at the primary site;
2. a
			 transmission or pipeline facility which is proposed to be sited within an
			 existing and currently used corridor;
3. an oil or gas storage facility with a
			 capacity which does not exceed 50,000 gallons and which is proposed for an
			 existing and currently used site.
(e) The primary site will be the lead company
			 or petitioner's preferred site unless the Council determines that an altemative
			 site is superior on the basis of the evaluation and comparison and applicable
			 environmental laws, regulations, and policies including those of the
			 Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program.