By:Scott Brinton
Federal, state agencies examining electric company that Merokeans worry over
Editor's note: This piece is a followup to the article, "An epic power struggle," which appeared in the February 15 edition of the Merrick Herald. To check out the original article, log on to www.liherald.com. Readers can find it in our archives. We welcome letters to the editor about this story. Readers can send them via e-mail to merrickeditor@liherald.com.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency is investigating whether Freeport Electric's Plant No. 2 violates the 1990 Clean Air Act, after Merrick and Freeport residents recently raised fears that the plant's diesel emissions may cause cancer in people and damage the ozone layer.
Mary Mears, EPA spokesperson in New York, said, "We are reviewing [the plant's] permit to ensure that it follows the correct requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. We have only just begun that review and have not come to any conclusions."
The Clean Air Act sets limits for air-pollution sources throughout the United States, providing "all Americans [with] the same basic health and environmental protections," according to the EPA Web site.
States are charged with carrying out the act. They can pass stricter air-quality regulations, but never less stringent measures. In New York, the Department of Environmental Conservation governs the Clean Air Act.
The EPA's probe into Plant No. 2 comes in addition to an examination by the state Attorney General's Office. That investigation, which also recently got under way, has reached no conclusions either.
The reviews began with Joseph Kralovich of Merrick, 48, a retired New York City firefighter who is battling to shut down Plant No. 2 or have pollution controls installed atop its two smokestacks. The stacks have no such devices now, making them what Kralovich called "open pipes."
The Merokean, who is president of the Old Lindenmere Civic Association, recently penned a six-page letter to the EPA and attorney general, calling on them to investigate the plant because of health and environmental concerns. "Within a quarter-mile of Merrick homes, and yards from those in Freeport, the plant is a constant threat," he wrote.
According to the EPA, diesel exhaust is a suspected carcinogen, meaning that it may cause cancer.
Combined, the plant's two 1968-vintage, 10,000-horsepower ship engines can burn from 1,400 to 1,800 gallons of diesel per hour. That's the equivalent of 140 to 180 18-wheel tractor-trailers driving 60 mph. Prevailing winds off the Atlantic Ocean often blow fumes from Plant No. 2 into Merrick, particularly the nearby Lindenmere section during summer when the plant is most used, said Kralovich.
In his own four-page letter to the state attorney general, Hubert Bianco, Freeport Electric superintendent, argues that Plant No. 2 is needed to supply electricity to Freeport Village and avoid the power shortages seen in California today. "All generation [of electricity] is currently necessary in order to avoid blackouts," Bianco stated.
Kralovich and other local residents contend that Freeport isn't running the plant to meet its own energy needs, but to sell electricity. And in the process, they say, Freeport is violating state environmental regulations.
Subhead: Contradictory reports
According to its 1999 Public Service Commission Report, Freeport Electric ran Plant No. 2 to meet the Long Island Power Authority's energy needs, not the Village of Freeport's, say Kralovich and Vincent Greco, 75, a former Freeport civic president and boatyard owner.
In 1996, Freeport Electric built a $14-million substation on Sunrise Highway, enabling the village to buy electricity from the New York State Power Authority upstate and on the open market.
From 1996-1999, Plant No. 2 got little use, Kralovich said. Then, in the summer of 1999, Freeport Electric fired it up again. Kralovich says he was told that the village was hit hard by brownouts owing to high electric use, making the plant necessary again.
Kralovich and Greco say, however, that the electric company's Public Service Commission reports contradict that assertion.
According to its PSC report in 1998, Freeport Electric generated almost 98,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity at Plant No. 2 that year. In 1999, Plant No. 2's output suddenly jumped to 1.2 million kilowatt-hours, because of need, officials were reported to have told Kralovich and Greco.
Freeport's 1999 Public Service Commission report states that the electric company sold 1.3 million kilowatt-hours to the Long Island Power Authority for $135,000. That means it didn't have to run Plant No. 2, except to sell electricity to LIPA, Greco said.
In a January 1997 article in the Freeport Leader, Bianco said that Freeport's ability to buy electricity from the state power authority would enable the municipality to sell the electricity it generates.
In his recent letter to the attorney general, Bianco wrote, "The village's hydroelectric power from the Niagara Project is limited and does not meet all our needs all of the time. Further, changes as a result of deregulation have limited firm transmission capability into Long Island."
hed: Particulate violations
Freeport Electric officials say Plant No. 2 complies with state environmental regulations, but Kralovich and Greco say they're wrong.
Bianco wrote to the attorney general: "The Village of Freeport utility is owned by its consumer ratepayers. As a municipal utility, the village has an obligation, and believes that it succeeds in, providing both environmentally sound and cost-effective services to its consumer owners."
In 2000 and 2001, the plant passed inspections by the state Department of Environmental Conservation. Mark Lowery, DEC spokesman, said however: "Understand that there are not a lot of standards to inspect."
One of Kralovich's biggest concerns is particulate emissions from Plant No. 2. Particulate, which is suspected to cause lung cancer, is the fine soot released during diesel combustion.
Lowery said, "There are no standards for particulate" emitted from a power plant such as Freeport's. "If the EPA were to promulgate regulations to set a standard, that might someday affect these types of plants," he said.
Kralovich and Greco, however, challenge Lowery's statement. They say there are state regulations on the books for particulate emissions from electric plants. And, they contend, the Freeport plant has violated those standards since the early 1970s.
They cite Section 227-1.2 of state Environmental Law, which regulates particulate from "any stationary combustion installation," such as an electric power plant. The law limits particulate to 0.10 pound per million Btu heat input.
They also cite a 1975 DEC report that examined diesel emissions at Freeport's Plant No. 2. Tests in July 1974, "which were conducted in strict accordance with established EPA guidelines, showed violations of the allowable particulate emissions limit of 0.10 pound per million Btu," according to the report.
Kralovich and Greco note that the DEC conducted the tests using diesel fuel with a 0.17-percent sulfur content, lower than the 0.37-percent sulfur content allowed under Plant No. 2's current DEC operating permit.
A higher sulfur content would increase soot emissions from Plant No. 2. Therefore, if the plant failed particulate tests with 0.17 sulfur fuel, it must fail them with the higher sulfur content, Kralovich and Greco say.
Bianco wrote to the attorney general: "Power Plant No. 2 is a permitted air emission source, and like all such sources in New York, the Village [of Freeport's] plant is subject to scrutiny and regulation by the Department of Environmental Conservation. The village complies with the Title V operating permit authorized by the DEC."
Subhed: LIPA deal gone sour
In the summer of 2000, state Sen. Charles Fuschillo Jr. (R-Merrick) arranged a meeting between Bianco and Long Island Power Authority Chairman Richard Kessel, in hopes of resolving residents' issues surrounding Plant No. 2.
Kessel offered to provide Freeport with the electricity it needed at low cost, as long as the village shut down Plant No. 2. Freeport refused the deal.
Bianco said, "Unfortunately, the energy prices quoted to Freeport were generally higher than market prices, so the village bought off the market or generated the energy itself, depending on which of the options was less costly to its consumer-owners."
Kralovich said in response: "LIPA offered lower-cost energy, but Freeport would not sign anything that limits operation of Plant No. 2."
