By Scott Brinton
Negotiations should wind down in the next two weeks, said Hubert Bianco, superintendent of Freeport Electric, the village utility. He made the statement during an open house at the Freeport Recreation Center last Thursday to display plans for the new plant.
Bianco said he had been to in Washington, D.C. for several days in recent weeks meeting with the project developer, which he would not name.
"We pretty close" to finalizing a deal, he said.
Bianco said the village was conducting an environmental-impact study of the project, which he planned to hand in to the village board by the end of February.
The project would go to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for an operating permit if and when the deal is sealed and the Freeport board approves the environmental study.
Bianco could not predict how long the DEC permit review would require. He did say that, when the village received a Title V permit to run the new plant, construction could begin shortly after and be complete within six months.
Mostly Merrick civic activists turned out for the sparsely attended open house, at which environmental and technical consultants to Freeport Electric were on hand.
The activists questioned Bianco intensively about the project proposal, as Thursday was their first chance during their yearlong fight against Plant No. 2 to speak with the electric superintendent. Until then, Bianco had answered few questions from the public.
Subhead: Oil at the plant
Joseph Kralovich, who has led the battle against Plant No. 2 since
February 2001, wondered about the possible use of number-two oil at the new plant. A bid proposal from Pennsylvania Power and Light had said the company intended "to maximize the use of fuel oil" there, if it were named as the project developer.
Kralovich worries that particulate (soot) emissions from oil would be higher compared to those from gas. Experts say natural-gas plants give off very little in the way of particulate and hence are considered among the cleanest power sources.
Kralovich took up the cause against Plant No. 2 because diesel exhaust is reported in several studies and by state and federal agencies to be a likely cancer cause. Of great concern to him has been particulate, which carries carcinogens through the air to settle deep in the lungs when breathed in by humans.
Bianco said more than once that the new plant would run only on natural gas, unless KeySpan Energy cuts off its supply during an emergency.
He said that, under terms of the DEC permit Freeport would likely receive, the village could run the plant on gas about 4,000 hours, or 166 days operating continuously, and 200-300 hours, or 8.5-12.5 days, on oil.
Bianco said there were sound economic reasons for the village to run the plant on natural gas, not oil. For one, under terms of its DEC permit, the village would only be allowed to emit a certain amount of pollution per year, and then it must stop running the plant. The more the plant runs on oil, the more pollution it creates, and the less it can operate.
Two, oil would contribute to engine wear far more than gas, particularly the Selective Catalytic Reduction system (essentially a giant catalytic converter like those found in cars) that the new plant would employ to reduce nitrogen of oxide emissions. Keeping the SCR system in solid working order would cost the village less over time than would running the plant on oil.
Finally, Bianco said that, if Freeport were to run the plant more on oil than was allowed in its operating permit, the state would step in. The DEC "could fine us significantly. They could pull our permit," Bianco said.
John Pollack is senior air-quality meteorologist with TRC in Lowell, Mass., the environmental consulting firm hired by Freeport for the project. Even if the new plant were to run on oil 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, he said, it would cause minimal effect to human health and the environment, especially when compared with diesel Plant No. 2.
For starters, the new plant would burn only ultra-low sulfur oil, Pollack said. Sulfur increases particulate. According to Freeport's current permit for Plant No. 2, the village can burn up to .37-percent sulfur-content oil there. The new plant would only run on .05-percent oil.
Pollack said the plant's emissions would fall well below levels that the federal Environmental Protection Agency considers dangerous to human health, even for those who suffer from respiratory ailments.
He bases the projection on computer modeling, which analyzed five years worth of meteorological data and plant emissions at thousands of points in a 10-mile radius around the plant.
Additionally, Pollack said the new plant's smokestacks would rise into the air 170 feet from the ground up. The current stacks measure about 110 feet.
The taller stacks would send emissions higher into the atmosphere, allowing them to be dispersed by more turbulent winds, which are not typically found at 110 feet.
A higher stack "helps avoid localized, high impacts" from exhaust, Pollack said.
The current plant, he said, suffers from what is called the "downwash" effect, in which emissions are immediately swept to the ground by prevailing winds. According to activists like Kralovich, downwash is the reason that Merrick is hit so often by exhaust from the plant.
Pollack also noted that the new plant would be equipped with pollution controls, whereas Plant No. 2 has none.
Subhead: Plant No. 2's fate
Kralovich and other activists also expressed concerns about how the diesel plant would be shut down once the new one came on line. Kralovich would like to see Plant No. 2 destroyed or cement poured down its smokestacks to ensure that it never runs again.
Bianco would not commit to either plan.
He said demolishing the plant would cost the village too much money. To dismantle Plant No. 2's two 10,000-horsepower Fiat engines would require that the village remove the plant's walls, a costly undertaking.
Kralovich says he is aware of that, and that is why he proposed pouring cement down the plant's smokestacks as an inexpensive option for the village. Bianco did not address that idea.
A week earlier, Anthony Cava, a DEC engineer, said the agency could require Freeport to pour cement down the stacks as part of the plant's "decommissioning."
Bianco said the village would sell off parts from the diesel engines if it could, and he said the plant would be disconnected from New York State's electrical grid.
He also said that the DEC would not issue a new permit for the gas plant. Rather, it would revise Plant No. 2's permit with more-stringent emission standards for the gas plant.
To bring Plant No. 2 back on line once decommissioned, Freeport would have to apply for a new permit, which the DEC would not issue unless the plant were "cleaned up," an expensive route for the village, said Bianco.
Kralovich remains unconvinced. In his research, he has uncovered
instances throughout the country in which power plants were decommissioned, only to restart down the line. That is why he wants Plant No. 2 rendered inoperable.
Kralovich also questioned why the village would keep a 20-megawatt combustion turbine that is found at the Plant No. 2 site, if it were to build the gas-fired plant.
Bianco said the village would need the turbine to meet state Independent Service Operator requirements that the municipality maintain a certain level of electric-generation capability on Long Island. The turbine would only run in dire emergencies and could operate 10-12 days annually, he said.
Subhead: Developer's interest
Bianco said that, when the new gas plant is built, there would be not one, but two 44-megawatt plants. One, the village would own and operate, primarily to meet its electric needs during summer. He noted, however, that the village might run the plant during winter to sell electricity on the open market. The Long Island Power Authority would also buy about 25 percent of power generated at the plant.
Bianco declined to offer comment about to whom electricity from the second plant would be sold. That, he said, would be up to the developer, which would own the second plant. (Freeport would hold an option to buy the second plant in the future.)
The developer would be allowed to operate the plant 4,000-5,000 hours, or 166 to 208 days annually, under terms of its DEC permit, Bianco said. He expects that, typically, the plant would run: in April-May and October-November; throughout the summer; and little, if any, during winter.
The outside developer was brought in to help the village defray costs of hooking the new plant up to the power grid and running gas lines into it. Installing new electric-transmission lines is estimated at $12 million and gas lines at $4.5 million.
The Village of Freeport plans to finance its power plant with a 20-year bond, which would be repaid through an electric-rate increase. The developer would pay for its own plant.
Subhead: Activists' reactions
Reviews of Freeport's plans among civic activists were mixed.
Debbie Lindell of Merrick said, "I think this is a very nice
presentation." She, however, is reluctant to believe that Freeport officials will do what they say they will. "My trust has still been undermined by events of the past," Lindell said.
Cindy Crociata of Merrick said, "I'm really just putting everything together." She would not comment further about Freeport's presentation.
Crociata did offer angry words for the DEC. She wants the agency to close diesel Plant No. 2 immediately, because she believes it represents an imminent threat to human health. "Tell me why the DEC isn't going to shut down Plant No. 2...How can they sit back and let this plant run this summer?"
Crociata also worries that Plant No. 2 will be fired up again in the
future if it is not destroyed. If Freeport were to invest in pollution
controls there, the village might be able to squeak past environmental
regulations and run it again, she said.
Unless cement is poured down Plant No. 2's stacks, Crociata said, "I will be living with fear that these diesels will come on line again."
