Local Elections
Here is more information from Dennis Stratton:
I feel that I must make this statement. These are my views not KEEP's. The group is not going to endorse any certain candidate. I will talk more about why not to vote for some. Of course the main reason that I will say something about someone is the lack of any concern to the health of Erie's residents, and environment. Now don't get me wrong, I am a sailor, and a diver, and grew up swimming in Lake Erie when good visibility was seeing your hand. I don't want to go back to those days. The air is cleaner, yet still bad, and the water doesn't have suds on it anymore, and the visibility is much better. But you know what there are still alerts about the amount of Fish that you can eat a week, a month, so it isn't cleaned up as much as some people would have you believe. Now a few people want to make a LOT of money by burning 2 million pounds of Tires a Day, on the East Side of Erie, in a residential neighborhood, with 5 schools within a mile, and the lake 500 yards away.
The emissions will over double what Erie now has, which is already getting a failing grade, F. Erie has a higher that average cancer rate. And a few people want to make that worse to make money. McCormick, Rubino......
On to the 2 politicians that I want to address. The first is Phil English. He is now acting like he opposed the Bush administration for the last 8 years. In reality he voted straight party line most of the time. I remember after hurrcane Katrina hit New Orleans and gas prices spiked a bill came up to look into Price Gouging he voted against it.
Now on to the Tire Burning Plant, has any one ever heard a word from him on the subject? No? Maybe that is because he has been getting money by Rubino for years now.
Has anyone found it strange that Rep English will not meet and discuss the tire plant? It my be too optimistic to think that Rep English will help in stopping the tire plant. He received a total of $5,000 last August from Dave Callahan, Erin Callahan and Janet Callahan. The family owns Palmer Paving in West Brookfield, MA.
Attached are a few paragraphs from a news piece nearly a year ago. Isn't it nice that Mr. Callahan loved this city and felt this would be a great place for a plant? I wonder which politician will be the next to take money from this group?
------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
Mar 09, 2007 (Erie Times-News - McClatchy-Tribune Business News via COMTEX)
Caletta Renewable Energy, which was formed about a year and a half ago, is the majority partner in Erie Renewable Energy. Besides Gatto, Caletta's
partners are Barletta Engineering Corp. of Canton, Mass., and Palmer Paving Corp. of Palmer, Mass.
Gatto said Caletta selected Erie for a plant because of a longtime friendship between David Callahan, president and chief executive of Palmer
Paving Corp., and Erie resident Owen McCormick, president of the Joseph McCormick Construction Co.
Individual Contributions Arranged By Type, Giver, Then Recipient
Contributions to Political Committees
RUBINO, GREG
ERIE, PA 16505
BALDWIN BROS INC
ENGLISH, PHILIP S.
VIA PEOPLE FOR ENGLISH
04/07/2000 557.00 20035732493
RUBINO, GREGORY
ERIE, PA 16501
BALDWIN BROS. INC/REAL ESTATE SAL
ENGLISH, PHILIP S.
VIA PEOPLE FOR ENGLISH
08/01/2007 1000.00 27931334921
RUBINO, GREGORY
ERIE, PA 16505
TABLACK, GEORGE JOHN
VIA TABLACK FOR CONGRESS
12/27/1999 1000.00 20035203759
12/31/1999 -1000.00 20035203769
RUBINO, GREGORY J MR.
ERIE, PA 16501
AMERICA'S FOUNDATION
02/01/2002 300.00 22990809944
RUBINO, GREGORY J MR.
ERIE, PA 16505
BALDWIN BROS. INC./REALTOR
BUSH, GEORGE W
VIA BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
12/04/2003 2000.00 24990264038
RUBINO, GREGORY J.
ERIE, PA 16501
BALDWIN BROTHERS/REALTOR
MOLLOHAN, ALAN B.
VIA ALAN MOLLOHAN FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
05/18/2004 1000.00 24971309529
RUBINO, GREGORY J. MR.
ERIE, PA 16505
BALDWIN BROS. INC/REAL ESTATE SAL
ENGLISH, PHILIP S.
VIA PEOPLE FOR ENGLISH
09/19/2001 500.00 22990216273
10/04/2002 200.00 22992336634
10/11/2002 300.00 22992336634
RUBINO, GREGORY MRS
ERIE, PA 16505
TABLACK, GEORGE JOHN
VIA TABLACK FOR CONGRESS
12/27/1999 1000.00 20035203759
12/31/1999 -1000.00 20035203769
Total Contributions: 5857.00
I don't remember ever seeing even one comment from English on the Worlds Largest Tire Incinerator to Be Built In Erie PA....
You would think that he would be out there ribbon cutting, and throwing the first shovel full of dirt if he supported this. But he has not said anything. Is it because he travels so much that he doesn't know what is happening in Erie? In fact English is in the top 10 congressmen for the number of free trips that he takes. How many of the GE locomotives has he sold, or can he sell you a bridge?
Now on to his opponent, Kathy Dahlkemper. She has not made any statement about the Tire Burning Plant. On her website she talks about newer technologies such a wind, solar, and bio fuels. Does not mention Tires. In some of Phil English's ads against Kathy there are statements about being connected to radical environmentalist. Who is he talking about? She has never endorsed anyone fighting the Tire Burning Plant who's partners Phil has taken money from.
In the commercials Phil attacks Kathy as being a millionaire. Isn't that the American Dream? That through hard work anyone can achieve what they desire. I would think that a person with good business sense
would be better in the position that Phil is now in.
On to Jane Earll,
Being a smoker she took the stance that it was wrong for PA to try to make it healthier for non somkers to go out. Oh yes we are taking rights away from people. Should we try to protect the majority of the people of health risks, or allow a few to induldege in what they want to do putting not just their health at risk, but everyone around them?
I guess this fits with her non stance on the Tire Burning Plant. I have been sending her office information for more than a year and have gotten only one response. She like Phil English have never made any public statement. How can you not say anything when people are planning on Burning 2 million Pounds of Tires a Day in Erie, in a residential neighborhood, next to the lake. I don't know if Phil smokes, I do know that Curt Sonney does, and he hasn't said anything. What is the connection? Its not like this is a Big Deal, or Something Important to all of Erie's residents, and Lake. Is It? These people are to be representing the people that elected them, not themselves. What are the people saying? What is the Health Department, Medical Society, and Lung Cancer Association saying? Are any of these people even reading anything that is being put out?
Jane's opposition is Cindy Purvis. Her stance on energy, is alternative, and green energy. Now I do agree Burning tires is Alternative. But it is neither Clean, Renewable, nor Green Energy. For ERE to continue to try to tell people the Burning Tires is Renewable Energy is just straight out LYING to people. They believe in the more times that you repeat yourself the more people will believe it. John Evans tried to have a new definition of Burning Tires put into the states new Renewable Energy Bill. That Burning Tires was a Clean, Renewable Energy. He retracted his amendment to the bill, later another person from Bucks County tried to put the same amendment in.
Unlike Kathy Dahlkemper, Jane Earl, and Phil English, Cindy has come out against the Tire Burning Plant. She has taken a stand. Again if you read the PA Constitution it does tell the elected officials that one of their primary jobs is to protect the people, and make sure the environment remains clean, and in good condition for future generations.
It would be nice to know what these people when they are sworn in say they will do. Is it to protect the PA Constitution?
Here is a paper presented Thursday at East High School to the Erie School Board, and Public,
Statement of
Kevin M. Stewart
Director of Environmental Health
American Lung Association of Pennsylvania
Before the Superintendent and Board of School Directors of the School District of the City of Erie, Pennsylvania Regarding the Health Impact of the Proposed "Tires-to-Energy" Plant
East High School
October 30, 2008
Thank you, Dr. Federici. Dr. Barker, Mr. Herdzik, School Directors, fellow panelists, and citizens, good evening. The American Lung Association of Pennsylvania appreciates the opportunity to make this brief statement before you this evening on the subject of the health impact of the "tires-to-energy" plant proposed for operation just a half mile from where we are meeting. My name is Kevin Stewart. I hold a bachelor of science degree in chemical engineering from Princeton University, and I serve the American Lung Association of Pennsylvania as director of environmental health.
The American Lung Association of Pennsylvania was founded 116 years ago to combat tuberculosis, and we are now dedicated to the broader mission of preventing lung disease and promoting lung health. The American Lung Association provides programs of education, community service, advocacy, and research, and is the oldest nationwide voluntary health agency in the United States. We represent a body of scientific knowledge on the subject of lung disease, specifically on well-established links between air pollution and lung disease, both as a cause of new cases and as an exacerbating agent for existing conditions. We have been fighting for relief from ambient air pollution since the middle of the last century.
In commenting on the proposed facility, the American Lung Association advocates for and represents not only on the order of thirty thousand Erie Countians who suffer from chronic lung disease, but also the millions, here and downwind, who desire to breathe clean air and so protect their good health.
It is our understanding that the Board of School Directors is looking for data or a summary of facts that are scientific and unbiased. Much information about the proposed facility itself is already on the record, so I will refrain from reiterating certain parts of that. Instead, I will begin by citing some findings pertaining to Erie County in the American Lung Association's annual State of the Air report.
Our ninth annual report was released on May 1 of this year, and it presents grades and rankings that were calculated using air pollution data from 2004 through 2006. These data were collected by state and local air pollution control agencies, were reviewed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and were validated for use.
The American Lung Association's State of the Air report grades and ranks cities and counties polluted by the most widespread and dangerous forms of air pollution � ozone (smog) and short-term and year-round levels of fine particle pollution (soot, dust, and aerosols). Counties are graded "A" through "F" for each category where sufficient data exist.
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 � mark this � 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.
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. Again, I ask you to take special note: 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.
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. Research continues to sort out more details about how particle pollution causes these effects.
In Erie's case, the county earned passing grades from the American Lung Association for ground level ozone smog (a "C"), and for long-term average concentrations of fine particle pollution. However, given that the EPA recently strengthened the ozone standard, it is anticipated that future reports will show failing grades for Erie County reflecting this change. But most significantly, the report showed that Erie County posted a grade of "F" for short-term (24-hour) measures of fine particle pollution, with 21 "bad air" days over a three-year period, ranking the county at 9th worst in Pennsylvania (of 21) and 46th worst in the nation (of 591).
While air pollution is unsafe for everyone, some people are at increased risk because of their age or health situation. Those groups include people with asthma, older people and children under 18, people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) � chronic bronchitis and emphysema, people with cardiovascular disease and those with diabetes. Far from being a tiny minority, these sensitive populations at risk account for on the order of half the population. In Erie County alone, the report presents some staggering statistics � those who are most at risk of breathing air pollution at unhealthful levels include:
� 65,000 children and 40,000 seniors,
� 6,000 children with asthma and over 18,000 adults with asthma,
� 9,400 with chronic bronchitis and 4,300 with emphysema,
� 76,000 with cardiovascular disease, and
� 17,000 with diabetes.
The American Lung Association of Pennsylvania draws the simple conclusions from the foregoing not only that Erie County already has a serious air quality problem, but also that there are tens of thousands of county residents currently at particular risk from exposure to air pollutants such as ozone smog and fine particle pollution.
With respect to the proposed tire combustion facility, some information we do have is the amount of air pollutants that the facility has applied for permission to emit. While this discussion will not address pollutants such as ammonia, acid gases, dioxins and furans, and the many toxic metals the facility is anticipated to emit, the applicant is seeking approval for the following emission rates:
* 230 tons per year Particulate Matter (PM10)
* 354 tons per year Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
* 690 tons per year Carbon Monoxide (CO)
* 179 tons per year Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
* 27.6 tons per year Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
In order to put these figures in perspective, it is worthwhile to compare them with facility emission inventory figures for Erie County from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the year of the most recent available data being 2006:
* For PM10, the emission rate requested by the applicant for approval amounts to nearly 45% more than the total of emissions reported for all 25 facilities with PM10 emissions identified in Erie County by DEP; the proposed facility would produce more than four times the amount of particle pollution emitted by the next highest facility on the list.
* For NOx, the emission rate requested amounts to 50% of the total of emissions reported for all 24 facilities with NOx emissions; the proposed facility would rank second on this list.
* For CO, the emission rate requested amounts to nearly 15% more than the total of emissions reported for all 23 facilities listed by DEP with CO emissions; the proposed facility would produce more than three times the amount of CO produced by the next highest facility on the list.
* For SO2, the emission rate requested amounts to over 20% of the total of emissions reported for all 23 facilities with SO2 emissions; the proposed facility would rank third on this list.
* For VOCs, although the emission rate requested amounts to just 4.5% of the total of emissions reported for all 26 facilities with VOC emissions; the proposed facility would nevertheless rank third on this list as well.
Therefore, by all of the preceding measures, we must regard this facility as one of preeminent magnitude for Erie County, and therefore worthy of serious consideration by all concerned. The fact that in addition to this, it is proposed that the facility be juxtaposed with residential neighborhoods, including many schools and day care establishments where members of sensitive groups may be found, simply underscores the American Lung Association's concern.
This is why the American Lung Association of Pennsylvania, at minimum, fully supports the Erie County Medical Society's position statement calling for the performance of an independent health impact assessment � precisely the type of analysis that would provide this Board with the type of information it seeks, yet in many respects cannot yet obtain, even from my worthy colleagues on this panel.
Such an assessment should address all manner of health concerns as would be suggested by the comprehensive list of emissions cited by the applicant. Among these concerns would be the following:
* What are worse-case scenarios for health consequences from acute and chronic maximal exposures, by all routes, to expected routine emissions from the total facility, as they may depend upon atmospheric conditions?
* What are anticipated maximal exposures under upset conditions such as start up, shut down, and other process interruptions? Especially, under what conditions might the stack or pollution control equipment be bypassed, and what would exposures then be?
* What air pollution scenarios would result from emergencies, such as might occur should accumulated tires or shredded tire charge catch fire outside the combustion chamber?
* To what extent does a failure analysis show that the uniqueness of this facility, the relative inexperience of the operating entity, and deterioration of the facility over its anticipated life of 30 years or more lead to additional health or safety risks for the surrounding community?
* What are the anticipated health impacts in neighborhoods adjoining the proposed facility as a consequence of the increased rail and truck traffic necessary to provide up to 1,000 tons per day of scrap tires and to remove an expected 117 tons per day of ash?
* What might health consequences be as a result of possible exposures to the material being transported into and out of the facility?
* What might health consequences be as a result of the combination of emissions from the concentration of polluting facilities, including the proposed tire combustion facility, in close proximity to one another?
Finally, it also our understanding that Superintendent Dr. James Barker is on record rightly expressing that the Board's "primary concern � is to protect the interests of children" and asking, in connection with any health implications, what the appropriate things are for the school board to do. The American Lung Association of Pennsylvania would therefore suggest that the Board of School Directors consider any and perhaps all of the following actions:
* Join the many voices calling for continuous emission monitoring of all pollutants, with data made publicly accessible and available in real time, being one requirement of granting an approval or permit for this facility.
* Join the Erie County Medical Society in its call for an independent health impact assessment (HIA).
* Consider if the many remaining unknowns
o especially if authorities refuse to require that the requested HIA be performed,
o combined with the increased potential for environmental injustice to occur due to the facility's extreme proximity to area residences, schools, and daycares, are not in themselves sufficient reason for this board to take the stand, prudent in the matter of protecting children's interests, of opposing construction and operation of such a facility.
Although I have endeavored to make our position as clear as possible, the American Lung Association of Pennsylvania will do its best to respond to any inquiries from the Superintendent or the Board of School Directors for clarification or for further information:
Air pollution worsens and causes disease and even death for real people. In Erie County, we have seen that the populations at increased risk from air pollution include infants, youngsters and the elderly, persons with chronic lung and heart disease, and diabetes. Every one of these tens of thousands is a real person, not a nameless statistic. Every one of these people is a family member, a neighbor, a coworker, a friend � someone whose health and life deserve to be protected.
I hope that this will make everyone think about who they are voting for. Send this to your friends and relatives.
Thanks
Dennis Stratton
I feel that I must make this statement. These are my views not KEEP's. The group is not going to endorse any certain candidate. I will talk more about why not to vote for some. Of course the main reason that I will say something about someone is the lack of any concern to the health of Erie's residents, and environment. Now don't get me wrong, I am a sailor, and a diver, and grew up swimming in Lake Erie when good visibility was seeing your hand. I don't want to go back to those days. The air is cleaner, yet still bad, and the water doesn't have suds on it anymore, and the visibility is much better. But you know what there are still alerts about the amount of Fish that you can eat a week, a month, so it isn't cleaned up as much as some people would have you believe. Now a few people want to make a LOT of money by burning 2 million pounds of Tires a Day, on the East Side of Erie, in a residential neighborhood, with 5 schools within a mile, and the lake 500 yards away.
The emissions will over double what Erie now has, which is already getting a failing grade, F. Erie has a higher that average cancer rate. And a few people want to make that worse to make money. McCormick, Rubino......
On to the 2 politicians that I want to address. The first is Phil English. He is now acting like he opposed the Bush administration for the last 8 years. In reality he voted straight party line most of the time. I remember after hurrcane Katrina hit New Orleans and gas prices spiked a bill came up to look into Price Gouging he voted against it.
Now on to the Tire Burning Plant, has any one ever heard a word from him on the subject? No? Maybe that is because he has been getting money by Rubino for years now.
Has anyone found it strange that Rep English will not meet and discuss the tire plant? It my be too optimistic to think that Rep English will help in stopping the tire plant. He received a total of $5,000 last August from Dave Callahan, Erin Callahan and Janet Callahan. The family owns Palmer Paving in West Brookfield, MA.
Attached are a few paragraphs from a news piece nearly a year ago. Isn't it nice that Mr. Callahan loved this city and felt this would be a great place for a plant? I wonder which politician will be the next to take money from this group?
--------------------------
--------------------------
Mar 09, 2007 (Erie Times-News - McClatchy-Tribune Business News via COMTEX)
Caletta Renewable Energy, which was formed about a year and a half ago, is the majority partner in Erie Renewable Energy. Besides Gatto, Caletta's
partners are Barletta Engineering Corp. of Canton, Mass., and Palmer Paving Corp. of Palmer, Mass.
Gatto said Caletta selected Erie for a plant because of a longtime friendship between David Callahan, president and chief executive of Palmer
Paving Corp., and Erie resident Owen McCormick, president of the Joseph McCormick Construction Co.
Individual Contributions Arranged By Type, Giver, Then Recipient
Contributions to Political Committees
RUBINO, GREG
ERIE, PA 16505
BALDWIN BROS INC
ENGLISH, PHILIP S.
VIA PEOPLE FOR ENGLISH
04/07/2000 557.00 20035732493
RUBINO, GREGORY
ERIE, PA 16501
BALDWIN BROS. INC/REAL ESTATE SAL
ENGLISH, PHILIP S.
VIA PEOPLE FOR ENGLISH
08/01/2007 1000.00 27931334921
RUBINO, GREGORY
ERIE, PA 16505
TABLACK, GEORGE JOHN
VIA TABLACK FOR CONGRESS
12/27/1999 1000.00 20035203759
12/31/1999 -1000.00 20035203769
RUBINO, GREGORY J MR.
ERIE, PA 16501
AMERICA'S FOUNDATION
02/01/2002 300.00 22990809944
RUBINO, GREGORY J MR.
ERIE, PA 16505
BALDWIN BROS. INC./REALTOR
BUSH, GEORGE W
VIA BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
12/04/2003 2000.00 24990264038
RUBINO, GREGORY J.
ERIE, PA 16501
BALDWIN BROTHERS/REALTOR
MOLLOHAN, ALAN B.
VIA ALAN MOLLOHAN FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
05/18/2004 1000.00 24971309529
RUBINO, GREGORY J. MR.
ERIE, PA 16505
BALDWIN BROS. INC/REAL ESTATE SAL
ENGLISH, PHILIP S.
VIA PEOPLE FOR ENGLISH
09/19/2001 500.00 22990216273
10/04/2002 200.00 22992336634
10/11/2002 300.00 22992336634
RUBINO, GREGORY MRS
ERIE, PA 16505
TABLACK, GEORGE JOHN
VIA TABLACK FOR CONGRESS
12/27/1999 1000.00 20035203759
12/31/1999 -1000.00 20035203769
Total Contributions: 5857.00
I don't remember ever seeing even one comment from English on the Worlds Largest Tire Incinerator to Be Built In Erie PA....
You would think that he would be out there ribbon cutting, and throwing the first shovel full of dirt if he supported this. But he has not said anything. Is it because he travels so much that he doesn't know what is happening in Erie? In fact English is in the top 10 congressmen for the number of free trips that he takes. How many of the GE locomotives has he sold, or can he sell you a bridge?
Now on to his opponent, Kathy Dahlkemper. She has not made any statement about the Tire Burning Plant. On her website she talks about newer technologies such a wind, solar, and bio fuels. Does not mention Tires. In some of Phil English's ads against Kathy there are statements about being connected to radical environmentalist. Who is he talking about? She has never endorsed anyone fighting the Tire Burning Plant who's partners Phil has taken money from.
In the commercials Phil attacks Kathy as being a millionaire. Isn't that the American Dream? That through hard work anyone can achieve what they desire. I would think that a person with good business sense
would be better in the position that Phil is now in.
On to Jane Earll,
Being a smoker she took the stance that it was wrong for PA to try to make it healthier for non somkers to go out. Oh yes we are taking rights away from people. Should we try to protect the majority of the people of health risks, or allow a few to induldege in what they want to do putting not just their health at risk, but everyone around them?
I guess this fits with her non stance on the Tire Burning Plant. I have been sending her office information for more than a year and have gotten only one response. She like Phil English have never made any public statement. How can you not say anything when people are planning on Burning 2 million Pounds of Tires a Day in Erie, in a residential neighborhood, next to the lake. I don't know if Phil smokes, I do know that Curt Sonney does, and he hasn't said anything. What is the connection? Its not like this is a Big Deal, or Something Important to all of Erie's residents, and Lake. Is It? These people are to be representing the people that elected them, not themselves. What are the people saying? What is the Health Department, Medical Society, and Lung Cancer Association saying? Are any of these people even reading anything that is being put out?
Jane's opposition is Cindy Purvis. Her stance on energy, is alternative, and green energy. Now I do agree Burning tires is Alternative. But it is neither Clean, Renewable, nor Green Energy. For ERE to continue to try to tell people the Burning Tires is Renewable Energy is just straight out LYING to people. They believe in the more times that you repeat yourself the more people will believe it. John Evans tried to have a new definition of Burning Tires put into the states new Renewable Energy Bill. That Burning Tires was a Clean, Renewable Energy. He retracted his amendment to the bill, later another person from Bucks County tried to put the same amendment in.
Unlike Kathy Dahlkemper, Jane Earl, and Phil English, Cindy has come out against the Tire Burning Plant. She has taken a stand. Again if you read the PA Constitution it does tell the elected officials that one of their primary jobs is to protect the people, and make sure the environment remains clean, and in good condition for future generations.
It would be nice to know what these people when they are sworn in say they will do. Is it to protect the PA Constitution?
Here is a paper presented Thursday at East High School to the Erie School Board, and Public,
Statement of
Kevin M. Stewart
Director of Environmental Health
American Lung Association of Pennsylvania
Before the Superintendent and Board of School Directors of the School District of the City of Erie, Pennsylvania Regarding the Health Impact of the Proposed "Tires-to-Energy" Plant
East High School
October 30, 2008
Thank you, Dr. Federici. Dr. Barker, Mr. Herdzik, School Directors, fellow panelists, and citizens, good evening. The American Lung Association of Pennsylvania appreciates the opportunity to make this brief statement before you this evening on the subject of the health impact of the "tires-to-energy" plant proposed for operation just a half mile from where we are meeting. My name is Kevin Stewart. I hold a bachelor of science degree in chemical engineering from Princeton University, and I serve the American Lung Association of Pennsylvania as director of environmental health.
The American Lung Association of Pennsylvania was founded 116 years ago to combat tuberculosis, and we are now dedicated to the broader mission of preventing lung disease and promoting lung health. The American Lung Association provides programs of education, community service, advocacy, and research, and is the oldest nationwide voluntary health agency in the United States. We represent a body of scientific knowledge on the subject of lung disease, specifically on well-established links between air pollution and lung disease, both as a cause of new cases and as an exacerbating agent for existing conditions. We have been fighting for relief from ambient air pollution since the middle of the last century.
In commenting on the proposed facility, the American Lung Association advocates for and represents not only on the order of thirty thousand Erie Countians who suffer from chronic lung disease, but also the millions, here and downwind, who desire to breathe clean air and so protect their good health.
It is our understanding that the Board of School Directors is looking for data or a summary of facts that are scientific and unbiased. Much information about the proposed facility itself is already on the record, so I will refrain from reiterating certain parts of that. Instead, I will begin by citing some findings pertaining to Erie County in the American Lung Association's annual State of the Air report.
Our ninth annual report was released on May 1 of this year, and it presents grades and rankings that were calculated using air pollution data from 2004 through 2006. These data were collected by state and local air pollution control agencies, were reviewed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and were validated for use.
The American Lung Association's State of the Air report grades and ranks cities and counties polluted by the most widespread and dangerous forms of air pollution � ozone (smog) and short-term and year-round levels of fine particle pollution (soot, dust, and aerosols). Counties are graded "A" through "F" for each category where sufficient data exist.
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 � mark this � 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.
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. Again, I ask you to take special note: 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.
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. Research continues to sort out more details about how particle pollution causes these effects.
In Erie's case, the county earned passing grades from the American Lung Association for ground level ozone smog (a "C"), and for long-term average concentrations of fine particle pollution. However, given that the EPA recently strengthened the ozone standard, it is anticipated that future reports will show failing grades for Erie County reflecting this change. But most significantly, the report showed that Erie County posted a grade of "F" for short-term (24-hour) measures of fine particle pollution, with 21 "bad air" days over a three-year period, ranking the county at 9th worst in Pennsylvania (of 21) and 46th worst in the nation (of 591).
While air pollution is unsafe for everyone, some people are at increased risk because of their age or health situation. Those groups include people with asthma, older people and children under 18, people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) � chronic bronchitis and emphysema, people with cardiovascular disease and those with diabetes. Far from being a tiny minority, these sensitive populations at risk account for on the order of half the population. In Erie County alone, the report presents some staggering statistics � those who are most at risk of breathing air pollution at unhealthful levels include:
� 65,000 children and 40,000 seniors,
� 6,000 children with asthma and over 18,000 adults with asthma,
� 9,400 with chronic bronchitis and 4,300 with emphysema,
� 76,000 with cardiovascular disease, and
� 17,000 with diabetes.
The American Lung Association of Pennsylvania draws the simple conclusions from the foregoing not only that Erie County already has a serious air quality problem, but also that there are tens of thousands of county residents currently at particular risk from exposure to air pollutants such as ozone smog and fine particle pollution.
With respect to the proposed tire combustion facility, some information we do have is the amount of air pollutants that the facility has applied for permission to emit. While this discussion will not address pollutants such as ammonia, acid gases, dioxins and furans, and the many toxic metals the facility is anticipated to emit, the applicant is seeking approval for the following emission rates:
* 230 tons per year Particulate Matter (PM10)
* 354 tons per year Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
* 690 tons per year Carbon Monoxide (CO)
* 179 tons per year Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
* 27.6 tons per year Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
In order to put these figures in perspective, it is worthwhile to compare them with facility emission inventory figures for Erie County from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the year of the most recent available data being 2006:
* For PM10, the emission rate requested by the applicant for approval amounts to nearly 45% more than the total of emissions reported for all 25 facilities with PM10 emissions identified in Erie County by DEP; the proposed facility would produce more than four times the amount of particle pollution emitted by the next highest facility on the list.
* For NOx, the emission rate requested amounts to 50% of the total of emissions reported for all 24 facilities with NOx emissions; the proposed facility would rank second on this list.
* For CO, the emission rate requested amounts to nearly 15% more than the total of emissions reported for all 23 facilities listed by DEP with CO emissions; the proposed facility would produce more than three times the amount of CO produced by the next highest facility on the list.
* For SO2, the emission rate requested amounts to over 20% of the total of emissions reported for all 23 facilities with SO2 emissions; the proposed facility would rank third on this list.
* For VOCs, although the emission rate requested amounts to just 4.5% of the total of emissions reported for all 26 facilities with VOC emissions; the proposed facility would nevertheless rank third on this list as well.
Therefore, by all of the preceding measures, we must regard this facility as one of preeminent magnitude for Erie County, and therefore worthy of serious consideration by all concerned. The fact that in addition to this, it is proposed that the facility be juxtaposed with residential neighborhoods, including many schools and day care establishments where members of sensitive groups may be found, simply underscores the American Lung Association's concern.
This is why the American Lung Association of Pennsylvania, at minimum, fully supports the Erie County Medical Society's position statement calling for the performance of an independent health impact assessment � precisely the type of analysis that would provide this Board with the type of information it seeks, yet in many respects cannot yet obtain, even from my worthy colleagues on this panel.
Such an assessment should address all manner of health concerns as would be suggested by the comprehensive list of emissions cited by the applicant. Among these concerns would be the following:
* What are worse-case scenarios for health consequences from acute and chronic maximal exposures, by all routes, to expected routine emissions from the total facility, as they may depend upon atmospheric conditions?
* What are anticipated maximal exposures under upset conditions such as start up, shut down, and other process interruptions? Especially, under what conditions might the stack or pollution control equipment be bypassed, and what would exposures then be?
* What air pollution scenarios would result from emergencies, such as might occur should accumulated tires or shredded tire charge catch fire outside the combustion chamber?
* To what extent does a failure analysis show that the uniqueness of this facility, the relative inexperience of the operating entity, and deterioration of the facility over its anticipated life of 30 years or more lead to additional health or safety risks for the surrounding community?
* What are the anticipated health impacts in neighborhoods adjoining the proposed facility as a consequence of the increased rail and truck traffic necessary to provide up to 1,000 tons per day of scrap tires and to remove an expected 117 tons per day of ash?
* What might health consequences be as a result of possible exposures to the material being transported into and out of the facility?
* What might health consequences be as a result of the combination of emissions from the concentration of polluting facilities, including the proposed tire combustion facility, in close proximity to one another?
Finally, it also our understanding that Superintendent Dr. James Barker is on record rightly expressing that the Board's "primary concern � is to protect the interests of children" and asking, in connection with any health implications, what the appropriate things are for the school board to do. The American Lung Association of Pennsylvania would therefore suggest that the Board of School Directors consider any and perhaps all of the following actions:
* Join the many voices calling for continuous emission monitoring of all pollutants, with data made publicly accessible and available in real time, being one requirement of granting an approval or permit for this facility.
* Join the Erie County Medical Society in its call for an independent health impact assessment (HIA).
* Consider if the many remaining unknowns
o especially if authorities refuse to require that the requested HIA be performed,
o combined with the increased potential for environmental injustice to occur due to the facility's extreme proximity to area residences, schools, and daycares, are not in themselves sufficient reason for this board to take the stand, prudent in the matter of protecting children's interests, of opposing construction and operation of such a facility.
Although I have endeavored to make our position as clear as possible, the American Lung Association of Pennsylvania will do its best to respond to any inquiries from the Superintendent or the Board of School Directors for clarification or for further information:
Air pollution worsens and causes disease and even death for real people. In Erie County, we have seen that the populations at increased risk from air pollution include infants, youngsters and the elderly, persons with chronic lung and heart disease, and diabetes. Every one of these tens of thousands is a real person, not a nameless statistic. Every one of these people is a family member, a neighbor, a coworker, a friend � someone whose health and life deserve to be protected.
I hope that this will make everyone think about who they are voting for. Send this to your friends and relatives.
Thanks
Dennis Stratton
2 comments
 |
| |||
 |
| |||
