By:Scott Brinton
Calls for public hearing, closure of Plant No. 2 this summer
Joe Kralovich, president of the Old Lindenmere Civic Association in Merrick, isn't counting on a deal between the Long Island Power Authority and the Village of Freeport to close Plant No. 2.
That's why last Friday he filed an application with the state Department of Environmental Conservation to open Freeport Electric's Title V permit to run the diesel electric plant.
Since February, Kralovich has battled to shut down Plant No. 2 or have pollution controls installed atop its two smokestacks. (It has no controls now.)
The DEC, state Attorney General's Office and the federal Environmental Protection Agency are probing Plant No. 2 for possible violations of the federal Clean Air Act. At the end of their investigations, the DEC or EPA may open the permit and rewrite it with tougher environmental standards, according to inside sources. Kralovich, however, isn't taking any chances; that's why he filed formally to have the permit opened.
Kralovich worries that the plant's diesel exhaust, which contains a host of known carcinogens, may at least in part be responsible for the apparently high cancer rate in areas of the Merricks.
"This thing has gone far enough," he said. "This neighborhood [Old Lindenmere] has taken a beating between the incinerators, the dump and the power plant. We're all dying." (The dump in south Merrick, the Merrick incinerator and the Freeport incinerator have closed. Only Power Plant No. 2 remains.)
drophead: No standards in permit
Kralovich wants Plant No. 2's permit from the DEC rewritten because it contains no pollution standards or monitoring requirements. Freeport "isn't in violation of their permit. That's why we want it changed," Kralovich said.
In fact, Item 4.1 of the permit states, "Emissions of the following contaminants are allowed under this permit: carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, particulates, oxides of nitrogen, VOC [volatile organic compounds]."
Freeport says Plant No. 2 is grandfathered, or exempt, from the Clean Air Act, which sets what are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The standards limit emissions of all the pollutants now allowed at Plant No. 2.
Kralovich argues that the plant should, at the very least, be subject to a particulate standard, because New York wrote one into its State Implementation Plan for the Clean Air Act. (Particulate is the fine soot given off during combustion of fossil fuels, including diesel.)
No matter if the plant is grandfathered from the Clean Air Act, the SIP requires that it meet the 0.10-pound-per-million particulate standard, said Keri Powell, staff attorney for the New York State Public Research Interest Group.
According to a high-level government source close to this story, the EPA has seriously discussed enforcing the 0.10 particulate standard at Plant No. 2.
Kralovich had believed that enforcing the 0.10 standard would be enough to shut down Plant No. 2, because, he said, it failed to meet that standard during 1974 stack tests.
Upon further investigation, it was revealed that the DEC ran six stack tests at the plant in the summer of 1974. The first three tests were conducted with .17-percent diesel oil; the second three with .89-percent oil. The plant "marginally" passed the three with .17-percent fuel oil, according to Vincent Greco of Freeport, a retired engineer and former civic president who, like Kralovich, is fighting the plant.
According to a DEC report, Plant No. 2 failed the three tests with .89-percent fuel oil. In those exams, the report states, the plant was three times above the allowable limit for particulate.
Right now, the plant can burn up to .37-percent sulfur fuel, according to its DEC permit. Such fuel would put Plant No. 2 more than two times above the allowable limit for particulate emissions, according to Greco's calculations.
A DEC official recently questioned Kralovich whether he would accept the plant burning .15-percent fuel oil, which is ultra-low in sulfur. In that case, the plant might meet the 0.10 particulate standard.
Kralovich's response was no, because when the plant burns ultra-low sulfur fuel, lubricants must be injected into the diesel engines with each compression stroke to prevent engine wear. "Nobody knows the health effects associated with their use," he said of the lubricants.
Additionally, reducing particulate does not eliminate the known carcinogens in diesel exhaust, he said.
drophead: Hearing needed
Kralovich is calling upon the DEC to conduct a public hearing, with EPA oversight, over Plant No. 2's permit. That way, the department can hear from residents about the complex issues and health concerns surrounding Plant No. 2.
In particular, Kralovich believes the plant should not be grandfathered and should be subject to all the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. "It should be considered a new plant. It should have to adhere to all [the standards]," he said.
Plant No. 2's diesel engines were installed in 1969, only one year before the Clean Air Act of 1970, from which village officials say it is grandfathered.
Philip Schiliro is chief of staff to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California), the foremost advocate for tougher air-quality legislation in Congress. Schiliro says the grandfather clause in the Clean Air Act was intended for significantly older power plants, not those built during the 1960s.
Furthermore, state officials said that, to date, they have found no record of the plant being grandfathered. Officials also could not say whether grandfathering applied to plants built before 1970 or 1963, the year of the original Clean Air Act. They said they were looking into that question.
Getting a public hearing over a Title V permit can be difficult, said Powell, the lawyer for the public research interest group. "Apparently, DEC will hold a public hearing on a draft Title V permit only if public comments make it reasonably likely that the 'project,' as opposed to the permit, must undergo major modifications," Powell wrote to the EPA in March.
Powell, however, argues that a public hearing to address a Title V permit is the public's right, according to Environmental Law.
Kralovich said, "I want to go by the law, and the law says I should ask for a hearing. The whole intention of the law is for me to get involved."
Drophead: Seeking closure
In the meantime, Kralovich wants the plant shut down until the DEC, EPA and attorney general complete their investigations.
Kralovich worries that, because the state isn't continually monitoring Plant No. 2, Freeport is free to do as it pleases there, meaning it could burn fuel other than number 2 oil.
In fact, the DEC cited Freeport in 1995 for burning number 4 oil, which is considered "dirtier" than number 2. In a letter to then-state Sen. Norman Levy (R-Merrick), DEC Regional Director Ray Cowen said, "The subject Power Plant [No. 2] is operating under a Certificate to Operate issued by this department. The plant has been burning virgin number 4 fuel oil, which is not consistent with the requirement of their certificate.
"The village has been directed to switch back to complying number 2 virgin fuel oil. Number 2 fuel generally has a lower sulfur content, thereby resulting in lower emissions of sulfur dioxide."
Kralovich said of the plant's permit: "What has to be included in there is monitoring and record-keeping."
