By Scott Brinton
Despite health warnings, village continues to run diesel electric plant
In the summer of 1993, Lindenmere resident Joseph Kralovich first confronted what quickly became his archenemy -- Freeport Electric's Power Plant No. 2.
Kralovich, now president of the Old Lindenmere Civic Association, was caring for his then 3-year-old son at home. Through an upstairs window, the New York City firefighter smelled a pungent odor. "I thought someone was burning bunker oil," he said.
With son in hand, he took a walk to find that someone. He scoured the neighborhood and discovered a yellow smoke plume wafting through the area. So, he said, "I put my son in the car and took a ride and followed the smoke."
It led him straight to Power Plant No. 2, a tan-brick structure measuring about 70 feet tall, which sits behind a chain-link fence on Buffalo Avenue amid the Village of Freeport's industrial park.
Ever since that day, Kralovich, now 48, has fought to shut down the plant, or have environmental controls installed atop its two smokestacks. Kralovich believes the plant poses numerous health risks to residents, including cancer, and threatens the local environment.
Recently, Kralovich took his battle to close Plant No. 2 to the state Attorney General's Office. In a six-page letter to Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Kralovich wrote, "Within a quarter-mile of Merrick homes, and yards from those in Freeport, the plant is a constant threat."
Lisa Feiner, assistant attorney general in the state's Environmental Protection Bureau, said she is looking into the matter, but she could offer no comment yet. "I'm at the beginning of the process to determine if there is a legal basis to act," Feiner said.
Cause for concern
Kralovich worries because Power Plant No. 2, which lies just across the Meadowbrook Parkway from his Tudor-style home, generates electricity for Freeport Village using two 1968 10,000-horsepower diesel ship engines. The Italian motor company Fiat built the engines when environmental regulations were few and far between.
The two engines combined can burn up to 1,800 gallons of diesel per hour, Kralovich wrote in his letter to the attorney general. That's the equivalent of 180 18-wheel tractor-trailers driving 60 mph.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, diesel exhaust is a suspected carcinogen, meaning that it may cause cancer.
The EPA's Web site sates, "There is great concern about the adverse human health effects related to exposure to diesel exhaust such as lung damage, respiratory problems and premature death. Moreover, there is increasing evidence that diesel exhaust can cause cancer in humans."
Northeasterly winds off the Atlantic Ocean often blow diesel exhaust from Plant No. 2 into Merrick, primarily the Lindenmere section. The exhaust, unlike that from the typical 18-wheeler or municipal bus, is unfiltered and unchecked.
Kralovich described the plant's smokestacks, which pop out about 20 feet above the building's roof, as "open pipes," meaning that dirty exhaust spews from them straight into the air.
Mark Lowery is a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Conservation, which in 1998, issued Freeport Village's five-year operating permit for Plant No. 2. Lowery confirmed Kralovich's description of the stacks, saying, "There is nothing on that plant," meaning there are no controls to monitor or clean diesel exhaust from the facility.
How can that be, however? The EPA, after all, recently set stringent emission standards for diesel trucks and buses, but none for an electric-power plant?
Thus far, the EPA has issued no such regulations, which would eventually "trickle down" to the states, said Lowery. "The EPA attempted to promulgate regulations, and I believe the last set went to the U.S. Supreme Court," he said.
Freeport resident Vincent Greco, 75, has owned a boat yard across the channel from Plant No. 2 for more than 30 years. Greco has protested against the plant since the early 1970s, even organizing pickets in front of Freeport Village Hall. He knows how noxious untreated diesel exhaust can be. Last summer, he had a group of friends to his home for a quiet get-together. They were standing in his yard, when a southerly wind blew a cloud of brown smoke from the plant onto them. Greco's guests began vomiting.
After, the retired engineer said, "My mouth was all swollen, full of canker sores. I couldn't eat for two weeks."
Few standards to speak of
Plant No. 2 must meet few environmental standards.
The state DEC inspected the facility on Jan. 17, 2001 and Feb. 16, 2000, and found "they were not in violation of anything," said Lowery. He, however, noted, "Understand that there are not a lot of standards to inspect."
The plant's engines had to meet what is called an oxides of nitrogen test. Oxides of nitrogen, or NOX, are gases given off during diesel combustion. They are known to "irritate lungs, cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and lower resistance to respiratory infections," according to the EPA.
Lowery said Freeport's plant had to pass a NOX test -- but only one time. "There is a limit they had to meet," he said. "All they had to do was meet that limit once, and that was probably done not long after installation." The engines, said Lowery, were installed in 1969, more than 30 years ago.
"It was long enough ago that we don't have a record of when exactly it [the NOX test] was done," said Lowery.
Another measurement that must be taken at the plant is an annual "opacity test." For this exam, DEC inspectors shine a light through smoke generated by the plant. Eighty percent of the light must pass through the smoke.
"Essentially, they're looking to see if there is relatively thick smoke coming from the stack during operation," said Lowery. "The only check occurs at our annual inspection. If the plant is running at the time that our inspectors are there, they make a visual inspection."
Larger electric plants are often required to continually monitor opacity with special instruments inside the smokestacks, but not plants the size of Freeport's.
The sulfur content of Freeport's diesel fuel also must fall within certain limits, which it always has, said Lowery. Kralovich, however, noted that the DEC's prior permit for the plant called for a lower sulfur content than that of the 1998 permit.
Particulate, a particular concern
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 the promulgate regulations to set a standard, that might someday affect these types of plants," he said.
Kralovich challenged Lowery, saying that he was certain particulate emissions were regulated. He added that the Freeport plant is "way over what they failed in 1974 in particulates."
The battle rages on
Kralovich has attracted prominent allies in his fight against the Freeport plant, including State Sen. Charles Fuschillo Jr. (R-Merrick).
The senator recently delivered Kralovich's letter to Gavin Donohue, the DEC's executive deputy commissioner. "I've asked him to review the letter to see if there are any measures that can be implemented through the DEC," the senator said. "I'm trying to help them and do the right thing by realizing the ultimate goal, and that's not having the plant run."
Fuschillo added, "I'm hoping the DEC, if need be, will work with the EPA and come up with some regulation for plants such as these that were built in the mid-1960s."
County Legis. David Denenberg (D-Merrick), himself a Lindenmere resident, also supports Kralovich. Denenberg, an environmental engineer and attorney by profession, said he believes the DEC can, on its own, set standards for diesel electric plants. "The state can always have more stringent environmental regulations than what is required by the federal government. It cannot have less onerous regulations," said Denenberg.
He also noted that diesel emissions deplete the earth's ozone layer, adding to the global warming crisis.
Deal gone sour
Last spring, Sen. Fuschillo arranged a meeting between Hub Bianco, Freeport Electric's superintendent, and Richard Kessel, the Long Island Power Authority chairman, who is a Merrick resident.
Kessel offered Freeport a deal that would have provided the village with the electricity it needed, at low cost through KeySpan Energy, so long as the village shut down Plant No. 2.
Freeport refused, said Sen. Fuschillo. As to why, he was unsure.
The Herald attempted to contact Hub Bianco for an answer, but was told he was out of town until after press time. Other Freeport officials did not return phone calls.
Currently, the New York State Power Authority provides 90 percent of Freeport's electricity, according to Kralovich. The village contracted with the authority through 2013, he said.
Before 1996, the village had only limited ability to bring in electricity from upstate, making the diesel plant a necessary evil. Then, it built a $14-million substation on Sunrise Highway, enabling Freeport to receive electricity from the power authority and the open market.
Between 1996 and 1999, the village hardly ran the diesel plant, Kralovich said. Then, in the summer of 1999, the municipality was hit hard by brownouts owing to high electric use. In 2000, the village fired up its diesel plant again, running it throughout last summer into this winter. Now, Kralovich fears, the village will continue to operate the plant this coming summer.
Public nuisance clause
Plant No. 2 has apparently lived up to the few environmental standards that it is required to meet. Residents, however, can still effect change at the plant by having it declared "a public nuisance," said Lowery of the DEC.
If enough Merrick residents contact the DEC and complain about the plant, the agency can take a hard look at the facility and perhaps even act, the spokesman said.
"In the air regulation law, there is language that forbids facilities from operating in such a way that prevents them from putting out noxious odors," said Lowery. "The problem is enforcement. We have to prove to a judge that the facility is a significant nuisance to a significant number of people over a significant amount of time. That is not easy, and it requires the community to work with the department."
Kralovich says that hundreds of Merrick and Freeport residents consider the plant not only a nuisance, but also a threat. In 1993, he collected more than 100 signatures from local homeowners opposing its operation.
Now, Kralovich also enjoys support from other area civic organizations, such as the 150-member Central Merrick Homeowners Association. Michele Walsh, the group's president, said, "This is an issue that we're united with Joe in against Freeport Electric."
Walsh said that the Joint Council of the Merricks, an umbrella organization that comprises thousands of members from every local civic group, will likely support Kralovich, as well. "As members of the joint council, we get behind one another," she said.
On a personal note, Walsh said she is "extremely concerned" about this issue, "considering that my mother in law was a neighbor of Joe's and died of cancer, and her neighbor and an acquaintance around the block.
"Merrick residents really have nothing to gain by Freeport making their own electric," said Walsh. "The only thing we have gain is diesel emissions in the air."
Greco, of Freeport, said of the plant: "In this day and age, it just shouldn't be."
What's so awful about Diesel exhaust? Everything
The following provides a list of gases given off during diesel combustion. It also offers details about which diseases are associated with the gases.
