Billerica Power Plant Info Session
Citizens that are opposed to the proposed Billerica Power Plant will be holding an informational session on Wednesday, March 19, 2008, at 7PM at the Sacred Heart School (map). The public is invited to attend. The citizens will share publicly available information about the plant with neighbors. Concerns include air quality, safety water and noise.
With respect to the introduction to the power plant that was posted here previously, several great topics of discussion were raised. There are many reasons people are opposing the plant. Each reason is based in that person’s perspective, which should be respected. Some are not bothered at the prospect at all, which is fine. My goal is not to convince you. My goal is to share publicly available information with you so that you can make your own decision. 
The developer will try to convince you via mailings, full-page newspaper ads, and large headlines that are not endorsed by the people they are quoting (see image to the right). But, they have a job to do and certainly have a right to earn a living. For my part, I have a right to protect the health and safety of my family.
Unlike the developer, I did not fly over the area where I chose to live in a helicopter to survey the land. While the area has some industrial zoning, I did not realize it was an ideal place to put a power plant when I looked for a place to buy a home. A quick look at the zoning maps of the area reveals that there is dense residential development surrounding the entire site.
There is also not a demonstrated need for power in this area. The threat of rolling blackouts has been held up by the developer as a reason this plant is needed. This plant is an energy “insurance policy for the future” they claim. I say, beware of insurance salesmen. Those in the industry will tell you blackouts occur because of infrastructure failures, not because there is not enough power generating capacity.
For those that question or downplay the health impacts of this facility, here’s the scoop. There are health effects. Even the experts will tell you that, if you listen closely to what they say in this clip (large audio MP3 file) from the Billerica Selectmen meeting, March 3, 2008. They talk of a continuum for health effects, and make clear that it’s not binary – even if the plant is at or below the required limit, it’s still generating pollution, which is still being pumped into the air, and which will impact the health of residents around that plant. The EPA’s own scientists were just overruled in their call for more strict air quality standards. The environmental consulting firm evaluating this plant proposal will tell you they would like to see tighter “standards”. The developer jumps up and down screaming that they “meet” the standards. But remember, a standard is an acceptable limit- a balance struck between the needs of business and the tolerance of the public.
Is one more case of pediatric asthma acceptable? Is one more heart attack acceptable? What if that is your child or your father?
March 19th, 2008 at 9:38 am
One of my questions has been why this is needed and I guess the article answers this. It sounds like it isn’t really needed. Who are the intended customers of this plant? New York City? I know that they’ve needed more power for a while and it’s a lot harder to put a plant in there.
There is plenty of open space in NH and my guess is that folks in NH would be more receptive to something like this given Londonderry’s experience. On the issue of pipelines, there’s obviously one running through Londonderry so there’s a network in NH that could be tapped.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
The power plant is needed to make money for the company building it while supplying energy to “the region”. Plain and simple.
The power generated will be bought and consumed. If the plant doesn’t get built here it will just be built someplace else, and the power for the area will just come from someplace else.
I don’t really know any details on this plant other than what has been written above, but in terms of pollution, outside of renewables and perhaps nuclear, natural gas is cleanest way to go.
If one is concerned about pollution from a natural gas power plant, shouldn’t one also be concerned with the tens of thousands of houses in the area that burn oil and gas to heat their homes? Or is the argument that enough is enough?
I really don’t understand the NIMBY argument. To me this case seems no different than the Cape Wind thing. People want all the spoils of modern society, but want nothing to do with the ugly parts that make it possible. If the plant isn’t built here, it will be built someplace else, thus becoming someone else’s problem.
I also don’t understand the argument about one more case of asthma, or one more heart attack. Should we all start eating bean sprouts and ride to work on bikes? Ideally yes, but practically, no. How far does one take an argument like that?
Personally, my opposition to this would be that we are using our precious natural gas resources to make energy. To me nuclear and renewables are the only new plants we should be building. (I sure hope our next President makes that a priority) This country generates a tremendous amount of it’s energy each day through burning coal, oil, and natural gas, all of which contain a variety of very ugly pollutants that spew into the atmosphere every day. The air would be cleaner and we would be less reliant on imports from undesirable countries if we took this approach.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
-b: for one, plants that are “peaking” plants do NOT have the same standards for efficiency and clean equipment as regular plants do, nevermind the thing in your basement that burns gas.
Secondly, there’s the diesel backup, which is worrisome.
It’s the large scale of pollution this plant will produce (13th largest in NE if I recall). It’s being sited in a populated area - it shouldn’t be. A lot of states don’t allow this. MA happens to have lax laws, or else this plant would be proposed for CT, closer to the need. Great, so MA has lax environmental laws for siting a power plant, well, that must mean it’s OK to put these things in heavily populated areas.
As for efficiency and peaking, there are far better alternatives, including grid energy storage plants, which are basically plants that store energy from nonpeak times to be available for peak times. FAR better than building more plants just to meet needs at certain times.
To be frank, we should be putting a moratorium on ALL new fossil fuel plants, period. Are we serious about getting green or are we? Why do we need a HUGE new plant like this really? Shouldn’t we be incentivizing people and businesses to conserve more instead, and for power companies to go renewable/more efficient? We wouldn’t “need” these so-called peaking plants if we would just get smarter on our infrastructure. And it needs to start with how we build new elements of that infrastructure. Or else, we are just talking the talk, folks.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Sorry, 13th largest in MA, including any nuke power plants, I just wanted to correct that.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Wasn’t aware of the diesel aspect on this project.
I never remember there being much of a stink when the power plant at the end of Tanner Street was built. Any idea how that ranks in comparison to this project?
Well said about the need to conserve and talking the talk. I get so annoyed when I sit in traffic going through downtown, look around me and see that I am surrounded by nothing but trucks and SUV. And then when it comes time for trash day, I look up and down the street and see that perhaps 25% of my neighbors are using their recycle bin.
I wish the federal government would step up on this stuff.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
The neighborhood around Tanner isn’t very well organized.
Regarding recycling, when we lived in Dover NH they had a wonderful system. To throw out regular trash it had to be in special trash bags that cost $2.00 or so (back 10 or 12 years ago). You didn’t need bags for recycling and you could put out as much as you want. Of course you could put out as much trash as you were willing to pay for too.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
-b: to be honest, if I’d known about the Tanner thing, I’d have been against it. I just bought a house not too far from there. However, it’s a single stack, and this Billerica plant is proposed as a six 80-ft stack building.
Apparently, the Tanner L’Energia plant is planning a second building. Yes, I’m not for it, and I’ll fight it. Like I said, I have enough allergies, I don’t need more particulates going into my lungs.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
A big thank you to all involved in organizing the information session. What a great show of concern for Lowell!
Residents of Tewksbury, Lowell, Chelmsford and Billerica were in attendance. Victor Impink of Tewksbury, along with Fred Marcks of Chelmsford, and Don Gadbois of Billerica, shared publicly available information with the crowd about air quality, security risks, and impacts to the surrounding communities.
Carol McCarthy and Elaine Pantano, well-known Lowell community activists, and sponsors of the meeting, already have serious concerns about the L’Energia plant in Lowell, due to go back online in a month or so. It is owned by the same company, DG Clean Power that is proposing the large facility for North Billerica. Adding yet more pollution, and six additional stacks to a less than three-mile radius, does not sit well with them. Nor did it sit well with other Lowell residents who were at the meeting. Residents are very concerned about high traffic, noise, and pollution already in their area. Several residents wondered why invited city council members were not at the meeting.
Representative David Nangle was in attendance with two aides. Nangle, along with Rep. Tom Golden and others have sent a letter of concern to Secretary Ian Bowles, expressing their issues with the proposed plant and the impacts to their Lowell and Chelmsford constituents. Representative Jim Miceli of Tewksbury has done the same for his constituents, and has even filed an amendment to include Tewksbury in an action that would prohibit the building of a non-green energy generating facility within one mile of a residence, day care, school, park, playground or eldercare facility. Reps. Nangle and Golden have signed on as well for their communities.
Additional information about the proposal may be found at www.BillericaPowerPlant.org. Links to documents, as well as recent articles and maps of the site are available. Email alerts are sent out periodically to update subscribers on the activities in each community surrounding the plant. Click on the Contact/Keep Informed tab if you’d like to receive these updates.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Paige,
Thank you for having such an informative meeting. Is there anyway you can post about the email newsletter or the form letters that you have, so that people here can send this info. on to their neighbors and friends.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Hi b-
I guess the only thing I could say about eating bean sprouts and riding bikes to work is that those are choices we could make. When it comes to the air, we don’t get to choose really, do we? As a mom, I can choose to not give my kids french fries, but I can’t not take them outside to play. This plant will run on the hottest days, exactly when the kids would be in their little splash pool. Except, since the concentration of pollution would be so bad (and unregulated in the initial startup of those turbines), I couldn’t really take them out.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Paige,
I have really been thinking about this effort and the need for community invovement. Maybe pushing the money issue would be an important driving factor. (I am worried about my kids, but some neighbors seem to dismiss the pollution as myth) Some possibilities:
1)Residents calling their assesors office asking about future property tax abatements once the plant is built.
2) Marketing to residents on the loss in property value.
3) Doing an analysis of the area residents property taxes they are paying and then deducting the percentage decrease found in other areas w/ powerplants to show Billerica their loss in revenue on property tax vs. their gain.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Lynne - I lived very close to where you live now for a many years. I never really noticed any issues from the power plant. I did however notice a strange grape like smell at night - more often in the Summer. The smell was actually rather pleasant - kind of sweet. Not sure where the smell originated from, but I’d put money it was from someplace on Tanner Street.
Paige - The diesel aspect of the project does trouble me, but outside of that I really don’t have an issue with it. I think even if I lived nearby I wouldn’t have an issue, and I guess if I did, I’d move. Sorry that I am not more sympathetic to your cause.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:28 am
The smell may have been related to the remediation efforts at the superfund site on Tanner rather than the powerplant. Can’t say I’ve noticed it however.
March 21st, 2008 at 7:12 am
Hi -b
No issue. Not looking for sympathy. Only seeking to share. Each can make up their own mind.
It would be a shame to discover years down the line that “no big deal” was indeed a very big deal. Moving, while it sounds like an easy fix or easy out, really isn’t an option for a lot of people. I guess I’m just not inclined to sit back and take it when the plant just isn’t even needed.