It says that 7 messages were left at KEEP's offices, and not returned. KEEP has never had offices.....
When Rubino was asked about KEEP and some residents claiming that the plant will damage the environment and could cause harm to humans, his response was that it lacked credible and factual information. Is the response by the Medical Society, Health Department, and the American Lung Association, stating that it will cause harm to humans, credible? Who has spoken for Rubino? What Doctors? What Scientists? Any? Where, or from whom is Rubino's credible and factual information coming from? Try finding recorded, or printed documentation, or testimony from experts that Rubino keeps quoting.
In the Sidebar, it mentions ERE paying for 2 studies on risk assessment, and that there is no scientific evidence that any of the emissions would be harmful to the environment, or to humans. Who paid for the study? The only study that I have ever seen is an inhalation study (Health Risk?). They comment on 10 micron particles, which shouldn't be emitted, and that only one micron and smaller will not be captured by the filters as was stated by ERE's Air Emission Expert. This is an expert that Rubino has only for emissions, no experts for health nor for the environment.
ALAPA, (American Lung Association, PA) has reviewed the ERE Inhalation Study as requested by the Erie City Council.
This is from the review:
"While ozone, a highly reactive form of oxygen, shields the skin from cancer-causing sunlight, it wreaks havoc with the respiratory system. Ground-level ozone gas results primarily from the action of sunlight combined with hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted in fuel combustion by motor vehicles, factories, and power plants. Ozone levels typically rise during the period between May and October when higher temperatures and increased amounts of sunlight combine with the stagnant atmospheric conditions that are associated with ozone air pollution episodes.
Ozone is a powerful respiratory irritant that sears lung tissue. Even relatively low ozone levels can affect even healthy people’s ability to breathe. Ozone exposure may lead to shortness of breath, chest pain when inhaling deeply, wheezing and coughing. Ozone exposure often triggers asthma attacks, and results in more people being hospitalized or sent to emergency rooms for lung problems. Recent studies show that as levels of ozone increase, so does the risk of premature death."
Does the DEP look at this?
Fine particle pollution, more formally called PM2.5 or "particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less," is made up of complex microscopic bits of solid or liquid matter that are typically no larger than one-thirtieth the width of a human hair, and usually much smaller. In addition to direct emissions, as from incomplete combustion, fine particle pollution also results from complex chemical reactions in the atmosphere involving emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. Moreover, other chemical species, including toxic metals as well as carcinogens such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and dioxins, are adsorbed onto the surfaces of these particles.
Fine particle pollution can cause serious health problems even at relatively low concentrations and is responsible for tens of thousands of premature deaths in the U. S. each year. Since these fine particles are tiny enough to penetrate the body's natural defense systems, this means that when one inhales these particles, they become embedded deep within the lungs where some components have been shown to enter the bloodstream. Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in mainstream medical journals have linked particle pollution to reduced lung function, exacerbation of asthma, increased rates of school absenteeism, emergency room visits, hospital admissions, heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer, and premature death. While research continues to sort out more details about how particle pollution causes these effects, the science has been clear since the 1990s in showing that "no threshold appears to exist below which exposure to fine particles would be without harm." The study done listed 10 microns, they did not address ultra fine particles.
The best claim is: The Tire Incinerator would emit fewer emissions than a similarly sized coal plant, and that Coal generates 65% of PA's electricity.
How many Cities have Coal Power plants in them? How many in Pennsylvania?
The statement that it would emit fewer emissions is true, in most cases, but it's still not good. Studies have shown that Burning Tires emits 2 to 3 times more PAHs, (known carcinogens, which cause cancer) than burning coal does. Does the DEP look at PAHs? Will they be monitored? They didn't have anything in the Erie application on this.
Because of the Coal power plants in PA, we are the country's 3rd worst state for CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. Is the DEP looking at CO2? This is required by the US Supreme Court, and now the EPA.
The statement is made again by the DEP that a plant cannot open in Erie without meeting current regulations and laws. What if there aren't regulations? Who's laws determines the standards?
In the following article,"Tire-burning facility creates controversy" from the Plain Dealer on March 31, 2008, Michael Scott (mscott@plaind.com, 216-999-4148) reported that Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman (Freda Tarbell) said the agency would determine some time this summer whether those emissions would be under pollution standards. She said no universal standard exists for power-generating plants, and that the Erie plant would have to meet only the standards set in its permit, if approved.
She also said the agency would test continuously only for sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide and for particulates in the emissions from the stacks at the plant.
"At this point, we've yet to determine all of the other pollutants that would be tested for because, frankly, we don't know of any other plants in the United States that burn only tires," spokeswoman Freda Tarbell said in a telephone interview.
But Greg Rubino said that the company knows exactly what its emission levels will be for every toxin, based on the emissions of a smaller plant in Connecticut and a nearly identical plant in Japan.
The trouble is that the Erie Coke plant is proving that regulations and laws are not enforced once a plant is open. Does anyone really trust the DEP? or the EPA for that matter? Has anyone asked the DEP for the scientific, academic, or engineering credentials of the people that are analyzing, and reviewing the plans, and statements made by the experts that wrote the Air Emission Application, that ERE submitted to the DEP in December 2007?
Remember that it was these same DEP experts that let ERE submit that Air Emission Pollution Dispersal data that didn't take Lake Erie causing an inversion layer into consideration. Are they now looking at the effect of the marsh on the emissions?
Dennis Stratton
Update from Dennis: It was calculated from the reported emissions that 42 additional deaths a year will be expected from this plant's emissions. The panelist that said the emissions won't be that bad is not looking into nano particles. All of the emissions, almost 3 million pounds a year, will be 1 micron and smaller. That puts it into a whole new field called nano toxicology. Neither the EPA nor the DEP have done any studies on particles smaller than 2.5 microns.
ReplyDeleteAt one micron in size, the toxic particles can be absorbed through the skin. So your kids playing and rolling on the ground will get these toxins into their bodies. There is also cell to cell migration. What you breath in will go directly into you blood stream. All of which will make this even more deadly to anyone exposed to the emissions.