Town approves legal help for Nickel Hill project 5/8/00
By Judy Wakefield
As owners of the proposed power plant on the Dracut-Methuen line gear up for the state's permit process, Andover will be well represented every step of the way.
Town Meeting voted to spend $145,000 for assistance from experts in legal and regulatory proceedings regarding Nickel Hill's proposed power plant. Article 72 took little discussion as residents were in agreement about staying well informed on the matter. By approving Article 72, the town ensures that if the plant is built, it is done so in a way that will have the least environmental and public health impacts on Andover.
"We need a voice as this permitting begins," said Laura Jordan, a strong supporter of Article 72 and a member of the Merrimack Valley Residents for the Environment, which sponsored it. "This is an insurance policy... We need the legal channels to be successful."
She said the plant, as currenfly proposed, is not as safe, clean or quiet as it can and should be.
Yet the technologies are available to make it so, she said.
Funding for this article is the town's insurance policy to ensure that if the plant gets a permit, the best technologies are used.
She also said that because of Andover's involvement in this issue so far, Nickel Hill is being forced to examine the costs and benefits of using the best pollution-control and noise-mitigation technology. Neither was included in the original proposal.
The permit process is expected to take about six months to a year.
They want dollars to fight Nickle Hill plant 4/27/00
Editor, Townsman:
We are writing to urge the town of Andover to vote yes on Town Meeting warrant Article 72.
The proposed $145,000 will give Andover the ability to continue participation in the permitting process of the Dracut power plant.
The combined efforts of the town of Andover's environmental counsel and the Merrimack Valley Residents for the Environment (MVRE) have already had a significant impact on the proceedings.
Although our ultimate goal and hope is to stop the addition of another major source of air pollution in the Merrimack Valley (the plant will add 2,000,000 pounds of pollution per year), we want at least to make sure that the cleanest, safest, most environmentally friendly plant possible is built, rather than the one Nickel Hill is currently proposing.
This is the only time we will have a voice on the largest power plant in New England, which would affect us over the next 30 and more years.
This is a public health issue! Do we want to settle for a power plant that does not meet the Clean Air Act standards on pollution emissions (both volatile organic compound and ammonia)?
The town of Andover needs to lobby hard for the use of Sconox, which is the newest technology available. Sconox would reduce pollution emissions by half and eliminate the need for ammonia.
Yes, it may be more expensive for the company to use (although its maintenance costs over the life of the plant would be less).
However air quality in the Merrimack Valley must be a priority. We have the dubious distinction of having the dirtiest, most unhealthy air in New England.
We must put some teeth behind our fight to prevent corporate profits prevailing at the expense of our public health.
Secretary Durand of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs is looking closely at this issue.
His office and the Department of Public Health have raised many concerns about this plant, in part due to the extraordinary efforts of the own of Andover and the MVRE.
Andover's own board of health strongly agrees that Sconox would make a huge difference to the public health in the valley and, therefore, supports Article 72.We are only halfway through the permitting process and it is crucial that the town set aside money so that our interests are represented every step of the way. If the town of Andover does not spend the money to advocate for changes in the proposed Nickel Hill plant, we will end up with the NESWC of the West.
We also believe that the protection of the Merrimack River should be of paramount importance to the town of Andover.
The Merrimack River Watershed Council (MRWC), an organization whose mission is to protect and restore the Merrimack River watershed for the health and benefit of its communities, is strongly opposed to the significant water withdrawal (4 million gallons of water a day at peak flow) from the river to cool this plant.
The use of 4 million gallons during a peak day is equivalent to the water supply for a community of 60,000.
The MRWC believes that the Merrimack River should be preserved for public supply and not for use by facilities that can use proven alternative technologies (dry cooling) like those available to Nickel Hill.
At Andover's recent preservation summit, Secretary Durand warned Andover and the communities along the Merrimack River to pay special attention to protecting our water supply given the expected population growth of the valley over the next 50 years.
In sum, $145,000 is small potatoes in comparison to the price we will pay if Nickel Hill's proposed power plant goes unchallenged.
We can't turn our backs on an opportunity to make a difference in the air we breathe.
Vote yes on Article 72.
Mary Pritchard Matthew Dallett
399 River Road
Residents for the Environment urge support
Will town power up for legal fight against Nickel Hill plant? 4/26/00
Local environmentalists with the MVRE (Merrimack Valley Residents for the Environment) sponsored Article 72, which would appropriate $145,000 in legal fees to allow the town to continue its fight against the Nickel Hill Power Plant, proposed in Dracut.
While the activists sponsored the article, they would have no access to the money, which would pay only for the town's efforts to fight the plant.
The MVRE continues with its own privately funded legal battle, says founding member Laura Jordan of Andover.
Town Manager Buzz Stapczynski says selectmen and Finance Committee members support the article so the town can appeal a decision if the plant is approved by the state Energy Facilities Siting Board.
"Selectmen have a very clear policy that they are opposed to the siting of this plant," Stapczynski says.
Last year Town Meeting voters approved $50,000 for legal fees in fighting the plant.
Jordan says the efforts have made a difference.
"The siting board got a lot of information and uncovered a lot of issues because of Andover, MVRE and other constituents," Jordan says.
Attorney Robert J. Muldoon Jr. of Sherin and Lodgen in Boston has served as Andover's special counsel to fight the siting of the proposed plant.
Jordan says most of MVRE's legal expertise has been performed pro bono, and the group continues to try and raise money and recruit technical experts.
If they can't stop the plant, they hope to "make sure it's the cleanest, safest, quietest plant it could be," Jordan says.
-Rebecca Lipchitz
Oppose Nickel Hill 4/26/00
Editor, Townsman:
Article 72 authorizes the town to spend $145,000 to continue vigorous participation in the legal and permitting proceedings regarding the 750-megawatt, natural- gas-fired power plant being proposed by Nickel Hill in Dracut, less than one mile from the Andover border. This funding is the only means by which Andover can continue its meaningful role in the critical proceedings that will take place in the next 6 to 12 months, the outcome of which will affect our community for decades to come.
Andover's participation to date, along with the MVRE and other concerned constituencies, has resulted in a number of successes with respect to the initial proceedings regarding this proposal, the
most notable being that the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs recently rejected Nickel Hill's Final Environmental Impact Report as failing to address critical air and noise issues.
The Nickel Hill plant, as currently proposed, is not as safe, clean, or quiet as it can and should be. Yet while the technologies are readily available to make it so, Nickel Hill refuses to consider them for one reason — namely, cost.
Nickel Hill touts this plant as "cleaner" than coal- or oil-burning plants, as well as incinerators. Certainly this is true. However, to then conclude by this comparison that its effects are insignificant is nothing short of ridiculous. Two million pounds of annual air pollution is hardly insignificant.
The state agencies tell us they will "do the right thing" regarding this massive proposal. The state Department of Public Health is demanding cumulative air modeling and monitoring stations to address basic public-health questions about this facility. Yet these efforts, the result of interventions by Andover, the MVRE and others, may not be enough to ensure we preserve our health and environment. This plant does not belong in the pollution-saturated Merrimack Valley, where troubling health statistics are just beginning to be addressed with studies. Andover needs this funding to apply legal means, if necessary, to stop this proposal, or short of that, to ensure only the best technologies are used regardless of cost.
Given these concerns, the selectmen, Finance Committee, and Board of Health
voted unanimously to support this article. We urge all Andover residents to do so as well.
Laura Jordan
Inwood Lane
Merrimack Valley Residents for the Environment
Fight the power plant II 4/26/00
Editor, Townsman:
If built, the Dracut Power Plant would emit approximately two million pounds of pollutants per year into the Andover airshed and over the Andover watershed. It would be the largest emitter of carbon monoxide in the Merrimack Valley.
These pollutants exacerbate respiratory disease and contribute to the development of smog and acid rain.
The plant would truck 20,000 to 30,00 gallons per week of aqueous ammonia up Route 93 through Andover.
These are the facts. No sensationalisn is needed as the facts are sensationally daunting by themselves.
Andover is seeking to question the impact such a plant would have on the safety and health of residents. Selectmen have voted unanimously to support warrant Article 72, which would appropriate $145,000 for legal, technical and engineering support to continue this process.
Come to Town Meeting and vote yes on Article 72. It may be the most important vote you cast to protect the quality of life in our community.
Sheryl Poole
One Stoneybrook Circle
Group to battle 3/9/00
power plant proposal
ANDOVER, Mass. — Selectmen voted last week to propose the town pay a private environmental group $145,000 to monitor the construction and operation of the proposed Nickel Hill Energy power plant.
The group, the Merrimack Valley Residents for the Environment, say the 750-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant's proponent has failed to adequately address health and safety issues.
The group wants to minimize environmental and public health threats of the project proposed for a 25-acre site off Route 110 in Dracut, less than a mile from Andover.
The proposal will go before voters at the spring town meeting.
Over power plant permit 3/6/00
The final arguments
By Rebecca Lipchitz
Attorneys hired by Andover to fight the permitting of the proposed power plant in Dracut offered several reasons to state officials last week as to why the plant should not be allowed, including the fact that the developers do not own the property.
Their presentation was one of several closing arguments made before the state Energy Facilities Siting Board in Boston Friday. Attorneys representing the Nickel Hill Energy Project, the town of Dracut and the local environmental group Merrimack Valley Residents for the Environment (MRVE) also made a presentation.
Attorney Robert J. Muldoon Jr., of Sherin and Lodgen in Boston, representing Andover, said the EFSB should not award Nickel Hill a permit because the company does not own the property, failed to provide enough information about alternative operating methods and has not adequately reported on potential noise the plant would create.
In addition to environmental concerns, Muldoon said the EFSB should not consider Nickel Hill for the project because the developers have "no legally cognizable interest" in the property.
"It is customary for the owner and proposed developer to incorporate or make an agreement, lease or purchase and sale option. But the record is absolutely barren of that report. That is not a mere technicality. It's the reality of the law in Massachusetts," Muldoon said.
Nickel Hill developer Tom Favinger said Nickel Hill and Brox Properties have executed an agreement that gives exclusive negotiating rights of the property to Nickel Hill.
Nickel Hill's attorney, David Rosenzweig of Keegan, Werlin & Pabian of Boston, said the agreement between Brox and Nickel Hill qualifies the company for legal definition of "applicant."
"There can be no serious question in this area," he told siting board officials at the hearing.
Muldoon also cited several environmental concerns echoed by attorneys for the MVRE and others opposed to the plant.
Most of same concerns were noted in the response from the state Department of Environmental Protection to Nickel Hill's Final Environmental Impact Report.
The response from the state requires Nickel Hill to supply more information about air vs. water cooling technologies, the ability to use SCONOx (or ammonia-free) pollution control, and the potential effects noise created by the plant.
Muldoon, a former conservation commission member and vice president of the Conservation Law Foundation, asked EFSB members to consider the effects of the project on the region, and not just Dracut.
"It will be a small comfort to the town Dracut, knowing the tennis courts, the gymnasiums, and lower taxes outweigh the health concerns, if this board allows it to go forward," Muldoon said.
Andover resident and attorney Christopher Vrountas spoke to officials as an attorney for MVRE, and later privately as an "interested party" to power plant proceedings.
He questioned the credibility of several Nickel Hill consultants who testified earlier in the EFSB hearings.
"They couldn't tell me what the power plant would sound like. We still don't have the specifics," Vrountas said.
He recounted question-and-answer sessions with Nickel Hill consultants, at times lending a dramatic, officious voice to answers reportedly given by Nickel Hill.
MVRE attorney Syl Boumil also questioned the credibility of Nickel Hill's witnesses.
He called on board members to protect citizens of the area from the power plant, ant characterized the plant as a bomb the EFSB has the power to withhold, or drop onto the "citizens at ground zero."
"It's not a question of whether this plant will have an impact, but it is impersonal. We don't know which child with asthma will take an extra trip to the hospital. There is no safe level of pollution," Boumil said.
Rosenzweig told EFSB members that he is confident the board members understand that their witnesses are credible.
"There is no evidence that our witnesses lied or were motivated to lie as Boumil insinuates," Rosenzweig said.
The Nickel Hill attorney said the company will address the SCONOx issue and other information demanded of the supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Report, and defended Nickel Hill's decisions to use wet cooling over dry cooling, along with its research on noise impacts that shows the plant would not exceed certain levels outside the boundaries of the Brox property.
Now that public comment is closed for the EFSB, the board accepted legal briefs on the project until yesterday, and will be accepting reply briefs until March 10. Its decision is expected in a few months.
State wants more info on Nickel Hill 2/24/00
By Rebecca Lipchitz
ANDOVER TOWNSMAN
Environmental officials reviewing the proposed Nickel Hill Energy power plant on the Brox property in Dracut say they need more information from developers before approving the plan.
Robert Durand, secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) announced Friday that in order to meet requirements of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), Nickel Hill must file a supplement to its Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
"It's not rare, but it's not the norm," says Doug Pizzi, spokesman for the EOEA.
The EOEA calls for more information about water versus aircooling technologies, pollution control alternatives to ammonia, and expected noise level created by the plant
While the EOEA calls for more information, Pizzi says the plan is not in much danger of being rejected under MEPA.
"This certainly should not be seen as anything that denies the project, but we want to make sure we get the best technology now. Changing things after the fact can be very costly and hard to achieve,"Pizzi says.
Merrimack Valley Residents for the Environment founder Laura Jordan, who penned letters, both personally and as a member of the that group to the state urging the agency to get more information, says she is pleased.
"It was very clear that the FEIR was inadequate. I'm encouraged that the EOEA is advocating on behalf of citizens," Jordan says.
The Andover Board of Selectmen has also called for a study of the public health impacts of the proposed plant, and a set of restrictions on the plant if it were to be approved by the state.
In a fivepage letter to the EOEA, selectmen responded to the Nickel Hill environmental impact report.
The letter was produced with the help of Andover's Director of Public Health, Everett Penney, a Dracut resident, along with legal and environmental consultants working with the town.
"I think we've made a significant case that there are deficiencies in the FEIR Penney says.
He hopes that even if EOEA rules that the Nickel Hill plan meets MEPA regulations that it will put restrictions on the plant, especially on the use of ammonia and noise pollution.
Despite the requirement of local state and federal reviews for the project, no public health impact or analysis is required, making "Our worst fears manifest," selectmen say.
"The proponents have limited their analysis to what they determine is significant," the letter says.
Selectmen call for analysis of the cumulative impact of pollutants in the air, a requirement that the plant use a cooling technology, specifically SCONOx, that does not use ammonia, a requirement that the plant employ an "aircooling" system over a "watercooling~' system that would draw water from the Merrimack River, and a more specific analysis of what the noise from the plant would be like.
The letter calls for a study of the region's public health that would develop a set of data for the region.
"Contrary to (EOEA) Secretary Durand's expressed opinion that he is not convinced that this proponent ought to be held solely responsible for conducting their analysis, we are convinced that the proponent must be held responsible. If not the proponent, who? If not now, when?"
The letter urges the EOEA to reject the impact report as "inadequate in its attempt to protect the public health and environment."
Jordan says Nickel Hill should have "held up" the FEIR to include more analysis.
"Nickel Hill has tried to cut corners every step of the way. It's time they were held accountable. Why not give the public the benefit of that data? The public deserves a full analysis and to have cleanest and best technology, and we're not going to settle for anything less," she says.
Tom Favinger, local spokesman for the Nickel Hill, says the company was in the process of analyzing the use of SCONOx pollution control over an ammonia-based system, but did not complete the analysis because SCONOx only recently became commercially available.
"It clearly wasn't enough (analysis) and we knew that," says Favinger.
When information became available Favinger says "we immediately embarked on analysis," and have aleady held meetings with state agencies about the issue.
Analyses of watercooling and aircooling technology is under way as part of a permit application for the state Department of Environmental Protection, Favinger says.
The analysis of noise impact, Favinger says, is complete, and due to an agreement with Brox properties that surround the proposed plant site, the boundaries for noise pollution are greater than the boundaries for the plant.
What the state wants to know from NickeI HiIl 2/24/00
State environmental officials and local activists analyzing the proposal for a 750- megawatt gas-fired power plant proposed for Dracut, just across the river from Andover, want more information from developers Nickel Hill on noise pollution, the method of air-pollution control, and the method of water cooling, says Doug Pizzi, spokesman for the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.
SCONOx vs. SCR
Nickel Hill has proposed the use of Selective Catalytic Reduction to eliminate pollutants. State officials and local activtsts are encouraging the use of SCONOx, a non-ammonia technology that recentiy became commercially available.
Tom Favinger, of Nickel Hill, says the company began to consider using SCONOx as soon as it became available, but has yet to complete an analysis, which will be done in six to eight weeks.
Pizzi says one costly drawback to SCONOx is the use of platinum, an expensive precious metal, but the absence of ammonia is better for the environment.
"To be fair, SCONOx only recently became available, but I think at this point, since it's EPA certified, we want them to take a look at that," Pizzi says.
The use of SCR with ammonia, Pizzi says, means the state would have to constantly monitor the plant's emission 1evels in a way that would be unnecessary without ammonia.
NOISE
To meet EPA regulations, the proposed plant would not be allowed to cause noise of more than 10 decibels past the site property line.
Pizzi says developers say the noise level is less than 10 decibels at the nearest residents' property, "but the nearest residence may be much closer in (the future)."
Favinger says an agreement with Brox Properties, which owns the land surrounding the proposed site, allows them to extend the l0 decibels boundary to the edge of Brox property, not the edge of the actual power plant site.
The l0 decibel limit can be waived if the neighbor agrees, as Brox is expected to do, Favinger says.
"When you leave the Brox property, you never get over 10 decibels," Favinger says.
He also doesn't expect residences to be built on IBrox property because the area is not residentially zoned, he says.
WATER VERSUS AIR COOLING
The EOEA is requiring more information on Nickel Hill's method for cooling the steam created by the plant.
Environmental officials ask that Nickel Hill further investigate cooling with effluent water, or water coming out of the waste water treatment plant rather than water directiy from the river.
Favinger says the plant has explored this, and while there is an advantage to not building a structure on the river or to avoiding the usage of four mIllion gallons a day of river water, the drawbacks to using effluent water are greater. Those disadvantages are:
• The water coming from the treatment plant is not as clean as water from the river, and the plant would need more of it.
• while the plant could treat the water coming from the treatment plant to use in cooling, the same amount of water only goes a third as far in the cooling cycle as the cleaner river water.
• Air cooling would require an additional building up to an acre in size to hold large fans that would add to noise pollution. The building would also have an impact on wetlands, and air cooling costs more to run.
While some environmental officials have told Nickel Hill that other Massachusetts plants are successfully using air cooling, Favinger says that doesn't mean it's the best method for Nickel Hill
"This isn't one size fits all permitting," he says.
Fight against power plant just beginning 3/2/00
Editor, Townsman:
Last Friday, proceedings at the Energy Facilities Siting Board ended with closing arguments on the Nickel Hill Energy power plant proposal in Dracut. The siting board is just one small but critical slice of the permitting process.
The Merrimack Valley Residents for the Environment (MVRE) would like to publicly thank attorneys S. James Boumil and Christopher Vrountas for representing our interests throughout the siting board proceedings. They generously gave hundreds of hours of time, completely pro bono, to make our case before the Board. They, along with the many other MVRE volunteers, have worked diligently to protect Andover's quality of life.
We'd also like to thank the Town of Andover for participating throughout the siting board proceedings and representing our interests as well. Andover's special counsel, Attorney Robert Muldoon, did an outstanding job making a case against the siting of this plant in his closing arguments.
MVRE has been opposing this proposal on multiple fronts. Among our recent successes, the secretary of Environmental Affairs rejected Nickel Hill's Environmental Impact Report. We feel encouraged that the state spoke so strongly on behalf of our health and safety.
In some ways, the battle is just beginning. It continues to be evident that this is the wrong site, using the wrong technologies, by the wrong company.MVRE continues to work toward defeating the proposal and if, against the weight of all the evidence, the plant is still permitted, we will fight for the cleanest and best technologies. Call 681-6486 for more information.
Laura Jordan and Sheryl Poole
MVRE
Officials try to clear air on asthma study 3/22/00
By Rebecca Lipchitz ANDOVER TOWNSMAN
Andover and state officials will meet tonight, Thursday, hoping to clear the air over a proposed study on high asthma rates in the region that has led to a dispute over privacy rights.The state Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment, part of the Department of Public Health, won a $300,000 grant to investigate a possible association between air pollution and pediatric asthma in the Merrimack Valley.
The study is expected to include information gathered from school records of students in Andover, Dracut, Haverhill, Lawrence, Methuen and North Andover, and information from control groups in other towns.But Dr. Margo Goldman, who founded the Coalition for Patient Rights, based in Andover, says the review of children's health records will violate their privacy.
"We agree that it's important to understand what's causing the high rate of asthma, but rummaging through school health records that are supposed to be confidential is not the way to do it," Goldman says. She suggests allowing parents to opt out of the study, or requiring school nurses to extract the data for the DPH, and then to provide information with street addresses and no names.
Roseanne Pawelec, spokesperson for the DPH, says she expects parents concern about asthma rates will outweigh their concerns about privacy. "We fully support a parent's right to know about the study and know the details of how we plan to conduct it," Pawelec says.
The DPH plans to allow the records to be collected by school nurses, she says, and if any parent absolutely objects, their child's information would not be included. "They would be encouraged to contact our department and we would have a discussion with them to reassure them about how the study is conducted. If too many people said no, we wouldn't be able to do the study," Pawelec says.
Dr. Daniel E. Coleman, a pulmonary specialist and president of the medical staff at Holy Family Hospital in Methuen, is a member of the Andover Board of Health, and contributes to the study as an adviser. "I certainly understand the privacy consideration. I deal with it on a daily basis, but I think we should strike a deal here," Coleman says.
As a local pulmonologist, Coleman says he has seen increases in pediatric and adult asthma, but more so in adults.
"Several (asthmatics) allude to the proximity of the incinerator and they have been convinced that the nights they (incinerators) are more active, the patient has paid the price over the next few days," Coleman says.
The study was prompted by data collected from the Community Health Network Association of Greater Lawrence, (CHINA 11), which showed that pediatric asthma was the highest rate of incidence of all diseases tracked in the area in 1998, according to Andover's Director of Public Health, Everett Penney, who is also advising DPH on the study.
The study will examine the relationship between asthma and air pollution from incinerators and other industrial sources, motor vehicle exhaust and other sources, Pawelec says.
They are expected to deliver a progress report to the federal government in the spring, she says, but won't have much information since data-gathering has been stalled by the privacy issue. "It's a good part of why we're off schedule, but we're not saying we can't make up this delay. We're simply saying we need to resolve this issue as quickly as possible" she says. The Merrimack Valley is home to four operating incinerators, including the NESWC trash-to-energy plant in North Andover.
Facts show power plant would be bad for Merrimack Valley
Editor, Townsman: October 21st, 1999
There has been substantial debate recently regarding Nickel Hill's proposal for a power plant in Dracut. As a leader of Merrimack Valley Residents for the Environment (MVRE), one of the plant's strongest opponents, I would like to clarify the following:
MVRE has always committed itself to a debate of the facts. As committed professionals, engineers and attorneys, we have invested thousands of hours and thousands of dollars carefully researching and analyzing the plant specifications. Just because many of the facts that have emerged are troubling doesn't imply they're false. To our knowledge, we have not strayed from an honest, factual discussion.
Rather than debating the facts, Nickel Hill has chosen to mislead the public with claims that they have no ability or intention of controlling or satisfying. For example, where is the evidence to sup- port their contentions that "the quality of the air you breathe will not he negatively impacted by Nickel Hill project" and "the plant does not pose any health risk to family or community"?.
We believe more than a million pounds annually of air pollution will impact our air quality and health, unless this can he proven false.
People living in and outside of Dracut have a right and responsibility to study and comment on this development. David S. Rosenzweig, of Keegan, Pabian and Werlin, Andover resident and lead attorney for Nickel Hill, is free to advocate for this plant just as we are free to oppose it.
The plant proposal has regional air and watershed implications. The proposal is within 100 feet from Dracut's town borders, and is directly upwind and closer to the towns of Andover, Methuen and Lawrence. To imply as some have, that residents of these communities should "mind their own business' is ludicrous and a distraction from the real issues. Should this plant get permitted, Dracut and the surrounding communities will bear the impacts for years to come.
MVRE agrees that air emissions from gas-fired plants are cleaner than those of coal or oil plants. But evaluating the Dracut proposal solely in these terms is not that simple. Consider (a) that Massachusetts deregulation makes no provision for taking older plants off line, (b)) that older plants are without new construction costs, making it unclear for these and other reasons that gas plants would undercut their prices and (c) there are no coal or oil plants in the Merrimack Valley to be replaced, and yet this new plant will add to our air pollution; (d) there are more than 50 gas-fired plants being proposed in New England.
We don't need this much power, and we must apply meaningful criteria for those proposals we do propose.
We are not alone in opposing this siting. We have the support of many local legislators, town officials, and more than 3,500 Merrimack Valley residents. Our analysis has shown again and again that this is the not the best company using the best technology and that the site, far from ideal, is flawed.
MVRE encourages the public to demand thorough examination and debate of the facts. We must ask the right questions about the air pollution, excessive water use, and dangers of ammonia-based technologies.
Nickel Hill has much to gain financially from this proposal, and it appears other groups like the Conservation Law Foundation may gain from other similar proposals. Their comments should be viewed critically and cautiously.
The Merrimack Valley health and environment has been seriously compromised by past industries and present polluters including pollution fror Mass. RefuseTech in North Andover (5 million pounds annually), Ogden Martin in Haverhill (3 million pounds annually), New England's largest medical waste incinerator in Lawrence, 25 other major industrial sources and countless minor sources, and mobile sources fror three major highways.
Public involvement is critical. Attend hearings, ask questions, review documents, and if you conclude as we do that the Merrimack Valley cannot tolerate yet another major emission source, call MVRE at 681-6486. We are looking forward to your involvement.
Sheryl L. Pool
Merrimack Valley Residents for the Enviromnent
Where is truth in power plant stats?
Editor, Townsman: October 21st,1999
Two important issues have emerged concerning statements that Nickel Hill (NH) made in its Draft Environmental Impact Report concerning the proposed power plant in Dracut. They show that Nickel Hill has "cooked the books" in order to avoid stating the true amounts of pollution that their plant will emit.
They have done this by using verifiably false assumptions, a schoolboy's trick, to hide the truth. It should make everyone realize that we do, indeed, have something to fear from this proposed plant, this egregiously oversized grab for gain in Dracut. It also makes one wonder what else they are, not may be, hiding.
Number one issue: they have used a misleadingly low number of generator starts and stops to calculate the general level of pollution they will generate. There have been at least three different estimates, one lower than the next, that NH has floated about concerning the quantity of pollutants that will come out of their multiple stacks.
Those of us who have been watching this very carefully were at a loss to know where these figures were coming from. Were they the result of better technology being proposed? Or new discoveries in the use of existing technology?
Unfortunately, the sad truth was that the only difference between the estimates was the number of starts and stops that the plant would make during the year. (All fossil fuel-burning engines are much more polluting during start up, thus the fewer the starts, the less the pollution, and vice versa.)
This is sort of the reverse of the person who claims his cats as dependents on his tax returns. The more cats, the less tax. The less starts, the more likely the proposal will be accepted. It is a transparent argument when found out, but when asked to justity the change in assumptions, NH refused to do it and, to this day, continues to refuse to do it
The obvious deduction for all to see was that it was done simply to make the Figures look good. in this case, when they look good, we won't feel so good (regrets to Ricardo Montalban by way of Billy Crystal).
Issue number two: they have used a misleadingly high quality of the source fuel to calculate the amount of sulflur dioxide the plant will produce. Gas is not just gas. There is pure methane and there is not-so pure methane. It all depends on what you find when you drill, and how much you clean it up before you send it .NH's estimates on the pollution levels are extremely dependent upon the quality of the fuel that it uses. It has consistenfly contended that estimates of its suiftir dioxide pollution rate be based upon natural gas, which they said would contain 1.07 grains of sulfer per 100 feet of natural gas.
Unfortunately for them, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., the people who run the gas lines, cannot guarantee anything less than 20 grains per 100 feet What's worse, the generator manufacturer itself said that it would not provide estimates based on NH's 1.07-grain figure because they didn't believe it was accurate. They suspected it to be a figure forLNG(liquefied natural gas) and not pipeline gas. The use of LNG would be a practical impossibility and is not the plan,in any case.
It is somewhat refreshing to see some honesty on the other side, but there's a catch. Keep in mind that the generator manufacturer would be an equal partner in any lawsuits concerning inflated pollution claims if it were to be shown that false estimates were due in part to their own connivance. It's OK for you to lie, but don't try to get me to back you up, they're saying. You're on your own, pal, on this one.
The sad part is that these issues were not even apparent until the lawyer for Merrimack Valley Residents for the Environment, S. James Boumil, asked the questions in the discovery portion of the review process, and again argued vehemently in motions to compel Nickel Hill when the answers were not inmiediately forthcoming.
Given these issues, and a number of others that are being investigated, it would seem that Nickel Hill's estimates aren't worth a plugged nickel, and shouldn't be used to determine the effect this plant will have on the Merrimack Valley's ecosystem.Hopefully, the counsels for MVRE and from the town of Andover, for which $50,000 was set aside at last town meeting for such purpose, will uncover all such false assumptions and other misrepresentations in the upcoming Energy Facilities Siting Board hearings.
I urge the selectmen to make sure this happens. Only then can a realistic baseline of assumptions be drawn up from which meaningful pollution estimates can be made. And then, perhaps, we will know exactly how much the surrounding communities will pay in terms of lost air quality and health from this needless industrial sprawl of a development.
Donald McCandless
20 Ravens Bluff
Treasurer, Merrimack Valley Residents for the Environment
Plant opponent is 'disingenuous'
Editor, Townsman: November 4th,1999
While I am reluctant to get into a public war of words with Mr. Vrountas, his recent letters to your newspaper are a disservice to the public and deserve a response from Nickel Hill Energy ("Nickel Hill putting profits over health," Townsman, Oct.14).
It is very easy for a determined opponent to take small portions from the project's thousands of pages of permit filings completely out of context and use them to suit his or her needs.
The fact is that Nickel Hill Energy has provided full and complete answers to those questions that are relevant to the environmental permitting process.
To suggest that Nickel Hill is being disingenuous, or putting profits over health concerns, is absurd and without support. All of the information provided by Nickel Hill must be supported by the facts, or the project will not be permitted by the numerous government agencies reviewing our application. The same can not be said for the statements of project opponents such as Mr. Vrountas.
Take, for example, his assertions that SCONOx technology is commercially available for a plant the size of Nickel Hill. If this were true, Nickel Hill would not only have proposed this technology but the permitting agencies would require us to use it. Indeed, the EPA commented on the availability of SCONOx Technology as recently as April. The EPA evaluated the technology to determine if it was available and feasible.
After conducting this analysis, the EPA stated, "EPA believes that SCONOx holds substantial promise for the reduction of pollutants from power plants. However, at this time, after considering the information from the applicant and from other sources, including the manufacturer and the licensee of the SCONOx technology, EPA concludes that SCONOx is not yet technically feasible for large combined-cycle plants today."
The EPA also notes that ABB, the commercial licensee of this developing technology for power plants greater than 100 MW in size, is currently unwilling to guarantee the performance of the system, including liquidated damages, in the event the equipment fails to perform at the promised level of availability.
Mr. Vrountas conveniently leaves out this type of information in his latest diatribe. He also fails to acknowledge the basic fact that the technology proposed by Nickel Hill Energy will result in a power plant that is cleaner than those operating today.
It is our contention that if Mr. Vrountas were truly concerned with the environment, he would join some of the nation's leading environmental organizations, such as the Conservation Law Foundation, in supporting the development of gas-fired power plants.
While we respect his right to disagree with us, state permitting agencies, the Conservation Law Foundation and the U.S. EPA, we feel that his personal attacks and selective use of permit data is not only disingenuous but also intentionally misleading.
Thomas G. Favinger
Project Manager
Nickel Hill Energy
AVIS opposes construction of new power plant in Dracut
The AVIS Trustees recently took a stand against construction of a huge, new power plant in Dracut by the Constellation Power Company of Baltimore. The new plant will look down on Deer Jump Reservation from just across the Merrimack River unless area residents can stop it. AVIS members who have studied the plans say that the plant will spew many tons of pollution into an area that already has the second worst air pollution of any county in New England, as well as abnormally high cancer and respiratory disease rates.
Trustee Matthew Dallett reported to Andover Town Meeting the AVIS Trustees are:
'"convinced the Merrimack River, the two and a half miles of AVIS' Deer Jump reservation that runs along the Merrimack River, and the more than 1,000 acres of AVIS reservations would be adverse1y affected by the operation of the Nickel Hill Energy Project; and therefore the Board of Trustees opposes its construction."
Cheryl Poole, Chris Vrountas, Sil Boumil and other AVIS members are working hard with Merrimack Valley Residents for the Environment to oppose Constellation's petition before the state Energy Facilities Siting Board.
Volunteers are urgently needed to help with this and proceedings before regulators who must approve the plant. Concerned members should express opposition to politicians from Gov. Cellucci
on down. Call Cheryl Poole, 681-6444, to help.
Holes in Nickel Hill applicaton
Editor, Townsman: November 18th,1999
I am delighted that Thomas Favinger, of Nickel Hill Energy, found the time to respond to my letters concerning the proposed 750- megawatt power plant his employer seeks to build in Dracut.
I note as an initial matter that Favinger has not challenged a single specific factual assertion from any of my letters. That is because the facts are undeniable. He cannot deny the major inconsistencies between Nickel Hill's Draft Environmental Impact Report and its Air Permit Application.
He has actally conceded in testimony before the Energy Facilities Siting Board that Nickel Hill refuses to guarantee that the proposed power plant will be natural-gas fired, notwithstanding the fact that all of its alleged support from environmental groups and the town of Dracut is premised on the use of natural gas fuel at the plant
He also cannot deny that Nickel Hill's air pollution estimates have been downwardly adjusted based on dubiously "refined" calculations of plant start-up and shutdowns, the number of which Nickel Hill has inconsistently suggested remains uncertain as Nickel Hill cannot even say for certain how many hours the plant will operate on an annual basis.
As another Andover resident has noted in this paper, Nickel Hill has obviously "cooked the books" in its pollution estimates. Yet, I have seen no denials from Favinger regarding any of the above.
As for ScoNox technology, even Favinger cannot deny that such technology is currently on line in smaller plants and that it has recently been permitted for use in a generator of equivalent size and scope as the proposed Nickel Hill project yet, he inexplicably continues to assert that such technology is not yet available. He argues against the nose on his face, while the rest of us watch it grow.
Instead of offering countervailing facts, Favinger offers only smear and spin. Regarding ScoNox technology, he spins a misleading yarn by referring to an April statement from somewhere within the EPA to support his weak argument that ScoNox technology is not available.
He intentionally quotes the statement out of context, however, as the quoted statement referred to a completely different project, and was expressly limited to its own specific circumstances.
The EPA has not made a final determination with respect to the Nickel Hill project. Indeed, in its comments during the state environmental review process, the EPA expressly asked Nickel Hill to explore the viability of ScoNox technology for this project. Yet, Favinger adamantly and falsely suggests that the EPA has ruled against the use of ScoNox regarding this project.
Favinger also laughably protests that Nickel Hill his been forthcoming in providing information during the Siting Board proceedings. Yet, the Siting Board has recently ordered Nickel Hill to produce additional information regarding air emissions and anticipated start-ups and shutdowns (which should have been provided weeks ago)and the board has temporarily suspended hearings concerning air emissions until Nickel Hill complies with the order. Such action does not reflect genuineness and cooperation on the part of Nickel Hill.
The state his finally begun to respond to some of Nickel Hill's high-handed tactics. Up to now, while citizens have justifiably insisted that Nickel Hill provide complete and detailed disclosure, Favinger scoffed that we should simply "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." We can only hope that the Siting Board will ultimately expose Nickel Hill for what it really is.So I am again saddened but not surprisedby Favinger's disingenuous ad hominem attacks against me. No doubt he wishes to change the subject. I for one, and I suspect the other residents of this area as well,are guided more by the undeniable facts.
Christopher T. Vrountas
379 River Road
No proof that new power plants will drive out old
Editor, Townsman: November 10th,1999
Hubert Humphrey said, "Unfortunately, our affluent society has also been an effluent society." Things haven't changed much since his time.
Power plants have long been recognized as one of the major contributors to pollution in the world. Yet, there are now proposals for around a dozen very large new power plants in the Com- monwealth. Pretty soon Massachusetts is going to look like Oklahoma, except instead of oil derricks, we'll have smokestacks and cooling towers dotting the landscape.
These plants bring a promise of money to the commonwealth. If they replaced the older, dirtier plants, then there would also be a promise of cleaner air for the commonwealth as well.
Unfortunately, there is no plan in Massachusetts to close the older, dirtier plants. In their haste to deregulalate electric power production, the Massachusetts Legislature either neglected or forgot to come up with a plan for the older plants that cleans them up, buys them out, phases them out or eliminates them in some way.
Those who claim to be in the know say that the market will drive the old plants out This is an unprovable assumption, not a fact. There has not been one shred of proof provided any where that shows these new plants winning a competitive bid with older, dirtier plants. Unless something is done differently in this state, nothing about pollution by power plants will change and, in fact, things can only get worse.
How, you ask, does that affect me? Last summer, there were 22 days of elevated ozone levels in Massachusetts. This ozone translates into distress for anyone with diminished lung capacity. The EPA has shown that in the last 10 years, one of the main precursors of ozone — nitrous oxide — has increased in this country. Why should you care? Those who are paid to watch over the state's health are beginning to, for one.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health just proposed a $250,000 study to see what may be causing the increasingly high incidence of asthma in the Merrimack Valley. This is an area that is an unwilling host to three highly polluting waste incinerators already. Two of these incinerators are electric co-generation plants, whose promise of self sufficiency, so highly touted by the state Legislature at the time of their construction, have fallen woefully short in all areas but pollution.
On top of all this, one of the giant power plants being proposed is to be located right in the middle of this troubled area, in Dracut. The callousness with which people's lives are being threatened by insensitive sitings such as the one in Dracut is unacceptable. This should be the concern of all of us who live here in Massachusetts because the same thing is happening all over the state. We who live here have to breathe the air. Others can look the other way, but the air affected by these plants will still reach us, our loved ones and everyone in the communities we live in.
Massachusetts should be able to improve its economy by any legitimate means necessary, but not at the cost of the health of its citizens. If someone chokes you with his hands, he could, and should, go to jail. If the power plants choke us with their smoke, the owners turn away and say, "The DEP says it's OK." Is this right? Furthermore, is pollution for profit justifiable?
Perhaps, when we didn't know what pollution did, it was. Now, however, at the end of the 20th century, no one can pretend that they don't know what at least some of the effects of this pollution are.
Building these new power plants without having a plan to eliminate the older plants is selfish, irresponsible and wrong. It will scar the landscape and leave a legacy of blight from which this beautiftul corner of New England will not soon recover. One need not look far in Massachusetts to see the ruins of former industries that once proudly built money-making monstrosities that now remain as idle eyesores in the communities they abandoned.
Moreover, the money received will never be able to replace the beauty that is destroyed by these developments.
The land is given in trust to us by past generations. We are able to pass this trust on intact only if we have respect for it. This is not respect. This is depredation in the name of money. Is this the legacy which we wish to pass on to helpless generations yet unborn? I hope not.
Donald McCandless 20 Ravens Bluff
Residents want strict limits on power plant
Editor, Townsman: November 10th,1999
The following letter was sent to the Dracut Board of selectmen:
We appreciated the opportunity to participate in the Dracut hearings over he past few weeks regarding the Nickel Hill project, and like us, you re probably breathing a sigh of relief that they're completed.
We're writing to summarize the conditions we believe should be mandated if you decide to grant the special permit allowing Nickel Hill to construct a 750 megawatt natural-gas power plant in Dracut.
We continue to strongly oppose this project on several grounds, including Nickel Hill's lack of credibility and concern with nothing but their own pocketbooks, which was made even more evident throughout the Dracut hearings. However, if you decide to grant this permit we ask that you protect the health, safety, and property values of the residents in Dracut and the surrounding communities by including these stipulations:
1.Require Nickel Hill to guarantee they will never use oil as a backup or primary fuel now or in the future. Make them live up to their original promise. The Merrimack Valley is already suffering disproportionate shares of respiratory and other disease rates.
2.Require Nickel Hill to use the latest pollution-control technology — SCONOx. Not only will this elminate the need for ammonia and the associated hazards, but it will reduce the pollution substantially. We have pages and pages of documentation on this technology, which we'd be happy to share with you. Alternatively, you may want to talk directly to SCONOx representatives.
3.Require Nickel Hill to use the most advanced noise abatement program possible. There are at least 1,800 homes within a one mile radius of this plant that are likely to suffer adverse noise impacts under the plant's current specifications, according to Dracut's own environmental consulting firm. And, like most of Nickel Hill's calculations, this projection is based on modeling. Therefore, the actual results could be even more severe. The additional money it would cost is a small price to pay.
4.Require Nickel Hill to use air cooling rather than water cooling. Air cooling is more environmentally friendly. It will eliminate multiple concerns, including potential weather conditions being created by the water vapor, potential for mercury and other metals to be deposited via the vapor, icy road, damage to ecology of the river.
5.Require Nickel Hill to establish independent monitoring systems with respect to number of yearly starts and stops, airborne pollutants generated by the plant, and noise. If any of the Standards for these conditions are violated, require Nickel Hill to shut down until they are put in compliance.
6.Require Nickel Hill to establish a $25-million bond by cash or written gurantee that all promises made to the town, and air and noise pollution standards will be complied with. The bond will fund the cost of any efforts required to bring the plant into compliance.
7.Require Nickel Hill to negotiate an agreement with Brox to maintain the visual buffers surrounding the proposed site.
8. Require Nickel Hill establish a property buyout program for residents in the one mile radius of this plant who end up losing money due to lower property values. This plant should not be built on the backs of the local residents— whether in Dracut, Andover or Methuen. We're already seeing impacts of this plant in our neighborhoods.
For all of us, our homes are our greatest assets, something we've worked for all our lives. There are numerous precedents for buyouts in Massachusetts and across the country, contrary to what Nickel Hill wants us to believe.
Thank you for your consideration. We urge you to keep the citizens foremost in your minds as you progress through this process.
Please call us if you'd like any information or data to support the conditions we've requested.
Laura and Tom Jordan
21 Inwood Lane
 |