The Old Lindenmere Civic Association is moving ahead with plans to stage a protest rally against Freeport Electric's diesel Plant No. 2. The march is scheduled for Saturday, June 16, from 10 a.m.-1 p.m. Residents are to gather at Merrick and Clubhouse roads at 9 a.m.
The march is to head west on Merrick Road through Merrick, over the Meadowbrook Parkway to Plant No. 2 on Buffalo Avenue in Freeport's industrial park. A 15-minute rally is to take place there, before marchers return to Merrick.
Anyone interested in joining the rally may call Joseph Kralovich, Old Lindenmere Civic Association president, at (516) 546-5632.
The Herald published a set of stories and editorial about the protest rally in last week's issue. We posted them on our Web site and will continue to do so until the march. We encourage residents to e-mail the stories and editorial to friends. Readers can do that easily by scrolling to the bottom of the stories and clicking the "E-mail a friend" button.
Also, a Litigation Action Group, led by Old Lindenmere Civic Association general counsel David Stonehill, has formed. The group is recruiting attorneys interested in becoming involved with "a massive legal undertaking" to shut Power Plant No. 2 down and compensate South Shore residents for possible damages as a result of pollution from the plant.
The Litigation Group has also formed a Medical Research Group, which wants to hear from area physicians about illnesses attributable to diesel exhaust from Plant No. 2.
Any attorney or physician interested in contacting Stonehill may call (516) 378-7627, or e-mail him at ECKHILL@aol.com.
Sidebar, set in box:
Freeport Electric by the numbers
Number of Customers Served: 13,000 residential, 1,800 commercial
Average Retail Rate: 6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, the lowest rate on Long Island
Employees: 62
Of Long Island's three municipal utilities, including Rockville Centre's and Greenport's, Freeport Electric is the largest.
Clearing the air over Plant 2
Herald investigates whether Freeport's diesel plant is exempt from environmental regulations
By Scott Brinton
Freeport officials argue that the village's 32-year-old diesel Power Plant No. 2 is grandfathered from the Clean Air Act of 1970 and thus does not have to meet the act's requirements. Its Title V permit from the state Department of Conservation would certainly bear out that assertion. It contains no emission limits, and the plant runs without pollution controls.
In recent months, Merrick residents have spoken out in growing numbers against the plant, which sits just across the Meadowbrook Parkway from Old Lindenmere.
People fear that the unchecked diesel exhaust the plant gives off may cause cancer and a host of other diseases. The EPA calls diesel exhaust "a probable carcinogen," said Ray Werner, an air-quality specialist with the agency, which is probing Plant No. 2 for possible violations of Environmental Law.
Now, a Herald investigation raises questions whether the plant is, in fact, grandfathered, as Freeport Mayor William Glacken contends. This paper found the plant very well could be subject to the Clean Air Act of 1970.
Here's why:
subhead: Defining grandfathered
To begin, we must define "grandfathered" as it relates to the Clean Air Act. There's nothing in the act that says power plants such as Freeport's are grandfathered, or exempt, from its requirements, said Keri Powell, staff attorney for the New York Public Interest Research Group.
Rather, the act only regulates power plants that were built after Dec. 30, 1970, when the Clean Air Act took effect.
The question is, when was Plant No. 2 built?
According to a 1970 pamphlet that Freeport Village sent to its residents, building contracts for the plant were awarded in 1967 and 1968. Construction got under way shortly thereafter. The plant's two 10,000-horsepower diesel engines were commissioned, or certified for operation, in 1969. Village employees completed work on remote-control operating panels during 1970, just under the wire so that the plant would fall outside the Clean Air Act.
But here's what we found in researching Plant No. 2 and poring through the Clean Air Act:
According to Freeport Electric's Web site, "About us?", the municipal utility modified the plant, adding a third engine in 1973, three years after the Clean Air Act took effect.
That change could make the plant what the Clean Air Act calls a "new source" of pollution, meaning that it would be subject to the act's provisions.
Here's how Section 7411 of the act defines new sources:
"The term 'new source' means any stationary source, the construction or modification of which is commenced after the publication of regulations," which, in this case, came in 1970.
Here's how the act defines modification:
"The term 'modification' means any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted."
The section offers no minimum for pollutants emitted from the plant. It regulates "any air pollutant." The third diesel engine is an additional source of pollution. It thus would appear that Plant No. 2 should be subject to the Clean Air Act of 1970, according to numerous attorneys, both environmental and general practice, with whom the Herald spoke for this article. The attorneys noted, however, that they could not be entirely certain.
The combustion turbine that Freeport added to the plant in 1973 is now considered an emergency generator, according to Plant No. 2's Title V operating permit from the state Department of Environmental Conservation. The attorneys wondered whether emergency generators, which likely shouldn't run much, would be exempt from Section 7411.
The Herald, however, found no citation in the Clean Air Act exempting emergency generators.
Additionally, David Stonehill, general counsel of the Old Lindenmere Civic Association that is fighting the plant, questions whether the combustion turbine is, or should be, considered an emergency generator.
The turbine is rated at 18.2 megawatts. Its generation capacity is thus nearly as great as the two diesel engines combined, which are each rated at 9.5 megawatts. By adding the third engine, Freeport almost doubled Plant No. 2's electric-output capability.
"Generally, an emergency generator is much smaller," said Stonehill. "An emergency generator is not some big guy."
The Department of Environmental Conservation has exempted the combustion turbine from all state and federal environmental regulations in Plant No. 2's Title V permit.
According to Freeport Electric Superintendent Hubert Bianco, state law allows the village to run the combustion turbine, which burns No. 2 oil the same as the diesel engines, for up to 500 hours per year. That's a total of almost 21 days, if the plant operates 24 hours daily.
subhead: Determining regulations
Pinpointing exactly which regulations Plant No. 2 would be subject to if, in fact, it must comply with the Clean Air Act of 1970 is difficult. That's what the Environmental Protection Agency is now investigating, said Werner, the air-quality specialist.
Essentially, the act says that new plants, built after the Clean Air Act took effect, must make use of the "best available" technology at the time of construction to limit pollution of: sulfur dioxide, lead, mercury, particulates, oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds.
Because officials apparently considered Plant No. 2 grandfathered from the act, however, it has no pollution controls. In 1974, then-state Sen. Norman Levy (R-Merrick) offered to help the Village of Freeport procure Environmental Bond Act funds to have pollution controls added to the plant. The village refused, however, according to a Freeport Leader report.
Werner declined to offer specifics about the Environmental Protection Agency's investigation into Plant No. 2. He would only say that the agency is working to ensure that its Title V permit "adequately reflects [pollution] controls that should be on it."
He added, "We do need the time to prepare a good technical case. Our goal here is to work with the state. The state has asked for advice, and we will provide that."
As to the danger that diesel exhaust may pose to health, Werner said, "It's pretty clear that diesel exhaust may case cancer."
