Let's look at some facts... -- 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: 13:02:58 05/04/01 Fri
Author: Celeste
Subject: Let's look at some facts...
In reply to: Ed Valis 's message, "Re: Power Plant Blues" on 09:31:04 05/01/01 Tue

Ed,

Some folks want to make this sound like a few neighbors are opposed for personal reasons. Let me provide you with some FACTS on this matter.
(and many thanks to Sheryl Poole of the Merrimack Valley Residents for the Environment for providing this information.)

Here are statistics on SOME of the people who have come forward in opposition to the plant--

MVRE (Merrimack Valley Residents for the Environment) and their several hundred members are in strong opposition to the plant.

The City of Methuen, The Town of Andover, The Town of North Andover have all passed resolutions opposing the power plant proposal based on their concerns about the already compromised environmental and public health.

Methuen Mayor Sharon Pollard has spoken in opposition to the proposal and has supported the efforts of the Merrimack Valley Residents for the Environment in opposing this plant.

The voters of Andover have twice appropriated funds at town meeting to oppose this proposal.

4000 people (in a 10 day period) signed a petition opposing this proposal.

Numerous local groups with many hundreds of members do not support this plant proposal - including the Haverhill Environmental League,
People for the Environment,
Lawrence Environmental Justice Council,
Lawrence Environmental Action Group,
Lawrence Grassroots Initiative,
Merrimack Valley Environmental Coalition,
and others.

They are not worried about whether they will have to look at it each day, nor are they worried about personal impact other than the health of their families and neighbors.
They have spent an incredible number of hours doing research and pay close attention to data as it gets published --

Such as the results of a recent Harvard study that specifically linked the emissions of two power plants , including oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, with 300,000 daily incidents of upper respiratory symptoms and over 150 premature deaths annually.

And Nickel Hill will emit 157 TONS PER YEAR of Nitrogen Oxide, 65 TONS PER YEAR of sulphur dioxide, and 111 TONS PER YEAR of Particulate Matter. In addition, it will emit 309 TONS PER YEAR of Carbon Monoxide, making it the largest producer of carbon monoxide in the Merrimack Valley - ACTUALLY 1.6 TIMES the largest Carbon Monoxide emitter in the Merrimack Valley. (Source: Nickel Hill Final Environmental Impact Report).

Now, I don't know how much each of these dangerous little particles weigh individually, but we are talking about TONS here - and when you add in the other pollutants (Volatile Organic Compounds at 98 TONS PER YEAR, Ammonia at 288 TONS PER YEAR, Formaldehyde, etc. etc.) this is not a pretty picture. Dennis Williams would prefer to have this plant than Brox. What data are you looking at, Dennis?

Let me do the math - the sum of these pollutants alone is 2.8 TONS PER DAY emitted from Nickel Hill's two 170', 22 feet in diameter stacks.

And these folks are concerned with other inputs such as the following from the Environmental Defense Fund---

Quotes from the Boston Globe (4/21/99) on an article titled "AIR QUALITY REPORT FINDS CANCER RISKS FOR MOST NEW ENGLANDERS"
This article addresses the "groundbreaking new report" done by the Environmental Defense Fund. They used EPA research obtained through a freedom of information request. "The federal government created this information, but in some ways, was frightened by its power," said Jason Grumet, executive director of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management in Boston, which advises states on air pollution.
In the report they look at "a less well understood part of the problem: the poisoning that occurs from exposure to 148 different chemicals, many with obscure names such as 1,3-butadiene, produced by motor vehicles, industry smokestacks, and businesses. States don't regularly test for most of these air toxins, and scientists are unsure of all their effects."

Further it goes on... "It's critically important that we get this issue on people's radar screens. This is the first time that we and the public have had any real numbers," said John DeVillars, regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency. "Imperfect as the numbers may be, they nevertheless demonstrate that this is a significant problem."

The article continues "However, compared with the federal goal of providing clean air to breathe, the United States is failing. ALMOST 6 MILLION PEOPLE IN MASSACHUSETTS ALONE and 220 million people nationally live in neighborhoods where the lifetime risk of cancer is at least 100 times the goal spelled out in the Clean Air Act. For New England, all those air toxins translate into roughly 4,500 cancers among current residents, led by the 2200 cancers in Massachusetts and the 1400 in Connecticut, according to the report."

My reading on this is that those 6 million Massachusetts people with the cancer risk 100 times that spelled out in the Clean Air Act are not living in the Berkshires, but rather in hot spots like the Merrimack Valley with all of our industry and other pollutants (INCLUDING, the two solid waste incinerators that burn over a third of the trash for the entire Commonwealth as well as some out of state trash, a medical waste incinerator which is the largest in New England and the second largest east of the Mississippi.)
Please see my other post on this forum for more details.

We have state standards, but let's not think for a minute that meeting standards means this is safe. The state has to set achievable standards or no new plants will ever come online. They will just raise the bar bit by bit to force companies to use newer technology which is better. Otherwise, companies would take the path of least resistance. So the older plants we all complain about met standards at some point in the past or they would not have been builts.

BUT the state does not have policy for cumulative pollution. This is very important for two reasons:

1. This means the state has no policy for stopping a new plant because it ADDS pollution to a highly polluted area. Their standards are for individual plants, not for cumulative. So we could in fact litter the Merrimack Valley with these plants and as long as they met individual standars, there are no violations.

2. Individual standards are primarily (my understanding) measuring pollution in "parts per million". What that means is that as long as the "percent" of the total emissions for a given pollutant do not exceed state levels, the plant is ok. So, that makes a big difference between say a 100 megawatt plant and this one which is a 750 megwatt plant (it would be the 2nd largest such plant in New England). I believe we should be looking at the total amount of pollution and decide whether this is something we want to subject ourselves and our families to --- especially when there are other viable alternatives.

We live in an imperfect world. Many of Nickel Hill's "facts" are based on models. They can easily be very wrong, although I would be surprised if they would err in the direction of being too conservative. And we don't have specific "facts" about impacts of certain pollutants.

But we are all reasonable people and we can make determinations based on conventional wisdom. For me, the warning bells are loud and clear. This is just not a risk I would be willing to take. Too much at stake for me.

Celeste

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