Skip to main content

View Diary: Fighting for Environmental Justice in Omaha (5 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What is the basis of your claims of health damage? (0+ / 0-)

    Your diary does not say anything about the factual basis of the claims that the power plant in question is actually causing damage to public health.

    The North Omaha area is considered in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone:

    http://www.epa.gov/...

    North Omaha complies with the NAAQS health standards for PM 2.5 and PM-10.

    http://www.epa.gov/...

    North Omaha is presently considered in attainment with the lead NAAQS, although I seem to remember some problems with a lead source which wasn't a power plant years ago in the Omaha area.

    In an area where all national ambient air quality standards related to primary health protection area being met, what is the basis or demonstration of your claims of health damage being attributed to the specific coal-fired power plant in question?

    Finally, if there is a health basis for claims about this power plant, shat priority conservation plant recommendations is the Sierra Club advocating and/or litigating that actually addresses getting emission reductions that will benefit the North Omaha community in question and what priority level is Sierra Club applying to prosecuting that act of needed air pollution control?

    •  sorry....what priority conservation plan (0+ / 0-)

      recommendations.....

    •  It is a dirty plant. (0+ / 0-)

      Thanks for your comment. I can send you a spreadsheet of our info showing the % of hours the plant emits more SO2 than our modeling shows is safe. I can also send you a pollution plume map for this particular plant. Let me know!

      North Omaha is the only large urbanely located plant that is neither slated to stop burning coal, or has a plan to install state-of-the art pollution controls to protect public health.  

      Just because an area is in attainment doesn't mean there are no causes for concern.  The plant had a number of "unsafe" air days last year.

      There is a lead superfund site just a few blocks south of the plant.  This community has endured one toxic legacy after another and the mercury issue should be highlighted in your response.

      Finally, OPPD, instead of committing to deal with its mercury problem, has asked EPA for more time to think about retrofit or retire.  It's application for a 1-year extension under MATS is wholly unsupported by the required "plan" for compliance that the rules require.

      Let's Move Beyond Coal - www.sierraclub.org/coal

      by Mary Anne Hitt on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 08:11:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If your health damage claim concerns (0+ / 0-)

        the 1 hr sulfur dioxide impacts from this plant, what does your modeling show about relationship between the 99% percentile value for the 3 year average of 1 hr SO2 ambient impact values from current emissions/operations and the level of the 1 hr SO2 NAAQS standard?

        In the case of that Maryland plant that had the very high SO2 impacts, EPA never found or determined that the area around the Maryland plant was a nonattainment area for the 1 hr SO2 standard.    This means Sierra Club's strategy won't actually reach effective control actions for SO2 against that facility.

        If you have modeling studies that show the ambient impacts to exceed the 1 hr SO2 standard or that the plant is otherwise jeopardizing compliance with a SO2 NAAQS, what strategy/litigation is SC pursuing against both of these plants that addresses the failure to comply with the SO2 NAAQS and which will lead to  State Implementation Plan limits to get the SO2 problems under control?

        Mercury emissions from that plant don't have anything to do with local respiratory health impacts or complaints in that North Omaha community as mercury emissions from power plants generally fail to cause ambient impacts exceeding mercury inhalation screening criteria published by U.S. EPA immediately around such facilities and mercury is not implicated at all in asthma and respiratory disease.

        If this facility is going to comply with the power plant MACT and continue operating as a base load coal fired plant, SC needs an effective  strategy to ensure that the plant becomes subject to SO2 NAAQS State Implementation Plan emission control rules.   It could also mean a higher, good engineering practice stack for the facility to address plume downwash if the facility has short discharge stacks.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site