Re: Power Plant Blues -- Dracut Information Resource Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:00:05 04/25/01 Wed
Author: celeste
Subject: Re: Power Plant Blues
In reply to: Dennis Williams 's message, "Re: Power Plant Blues" on 12:27:06 04/08/01 Sun

Dennis,

You said that you discovered a series of misstatements of fact regarding Laura's editorial. I must disagree based on the information I have - or at least put the sources forward so that they can be corrected).

Specifically,

1. Regarding the zoning: Article #21 was voted on and approved at the June 7, 1999 Annual Town Meeting for an amendment to the zoning laws that ADDED the "GENERATING ELECTRICITY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES".

The previous version of the zoning law stated: Public or Private Utility Facilities - Facilities, equipment and structures necessary for conducting a service by a public service corporation.

The new version of the zoning law stated: Public or Private Utility Facilities - Facilities, equipment and structure necessary for GENERATING ELECTRICTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, or for conducting a service by a public service corporation.

This sounds like a big change to me... It also sounds like a zoning law change (amendment means change according to Webster). And it sounds like it was required before entertaining the next article at that meeting (Article #22) which was the Nickel Hill Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) vote.

Why can't we all admit that there was a zoning change made to accomdate the Nickel Hill proposed facility and that it was done simultaneously with the voting on the PILOT agreement? I don't see any problem with that... (even though I disagreed with the decision).

2. Your point: "Laura says that the current zoning is light industrial. Just not true."

Dennis, I have the Nickel Hill Final Environmental Impact Report and Figure 3.2-1 prepared by Epsilon Associates, Inc. specifically details this property as being zoned Light Industrial. Are they wrong about that? If so, you can't fault Laura or anyone else who reports back on what the "experts" have presented.

3. Your point: "Laura says there are two smokestacks. Actually, there will be one. And to call it a smoke stack is an inaccurate pejorative. 99% of what comes out is water vapor..."

Again, going back to the Nickel Hill Final Environmental Impact Statement, there will be two stacks - each 170 feet high and 22 feet in diameter (VERY wide), particularly when compared to other stacks we see in our travels. (Reference Section 3.2.2 Layout, paragraph 3, page 3-8). In addition, the cover of the report, showing a diagram of the plant, clearly shows 2 stacks.

Well, you may not consider them smoke stacks, but tell me how many people seeing the large plumes will comment "gee, good thing these aren't smokestacks, but only stacks putting out water vapor, along with the nearly 2 tons of pollutants per day (per the Nickel Hill Final Environmental Impact Report)? I don't mean to be too sarcastic, but my point is that we (and especially me) are in general not sufficiently educated in power plants and technology to know the difference. If it walks like a duck, acts like a duck...

4. Re: school revenue. Although "Shocked" may not have been completely clear on the school revenue model, his/her point was important. It will be very disconcerting and worrisome to parents to see these smokestacks.

5. You said it would be easy to validate Laura's mistake about the Campbell School being 1 mile away.

Let me quote from Special Permit granted by and published by the Selectmen to Nickel Hill (page 4, Section FINDINGS, paragraph 6) "The nearest sensitive receptor is the Campbell School, which is one mile west of the facility".

Again, you can't fault Laura for regurgitating published data from the experts.

And you can't tell by driving since roads do not represent the shortest distance between the two points.

Let's correct each other is helpful ways. I continue to believe your intentions are as honorable as mine - and likewise for those who present both supporting and opposing arguments regarding the plant.

The important thing is that people should be able to come forward and not be intimidated or held back by an inability to get all the political and technical jargon 100% correct.

And thank you for participating in this forum. You have a lot of information and I know from talking with you that you have been striving for the best solution.

Respectfully (although often in disagreement),
Celese

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Power Plant Blues -- Ed Valis, 08:17:28 04/27/01 Fri
- Re: Power Plant Blues -- Celeste, 14:53:52 05/04/01 Fri