-
Delaware has extremely high cancer rates, infant mortality rates (6th in US) and soaring asthma rates. Delaware…”Ranks 34th in the nation overall for health status” …”Ranks 4th highest in overall in cancer mortality rates.”…”Shows 11.8% of its population having lifetime asthma.” Source: “SUSSEX COUNTY TODAY AND TOMORROW CONFERENCE booklet, 10/31/07 page 28.
Sussex County-- is among the top 20% of the most polluted counties in the US (Scorecard.org/)
The INDIAN RIVER POWER PLANT located in the middle of Sussex County ranks 34th of the 50 worst toxic polluters in the US , putting out 50% of DE industrial toxins.
Delaware’s air quality was graded "F" (American Lung Association, 2004 & 2005)
There is a 5 times greater risk of disease & premature death within a 30 mile radius of old coal plants. (Harvard Health Study 2000).
Even under the current cleanup reg IRPP will still be the state's worst or second worst toxic polluter.
Power plant pollution costs DE taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in health care cost.
Indian River Power Plant emissions, especially mercury cause serious degradation of the Indian River Bay system and coastal fisheries.
The Indian River Power Plant has unlined fly ash beds that could leak into the river or blow into the air. Fly ash contains arsenic.
Cancer cluster study set for
Health officials try to pinpoint cause of high number of cases in 6 ZIP codes, By AARON NATHANS, The News Journal
A study of lung cancer patients in the
The study, developed by the Division of Public Health, will begin in November, pending approval by the Delaware Cancer Consortium next month, a division official said Friday.
In July, the division identified a cluster of cancer cases in the six ZIP codes around NRG Energy's
The study showed the age-adjusted rate of cancer cases in the area is 17 percent higher than the national average, including an increased incidence in lung cancer among older residents.
But the study did not identify a cause. Area environmentalists suspect emissions from the power plant, but public health specialists say they first need to investigate one likely culprit: smoking.
Alisa Olshefsky, the division's chronic disease bureau chief, noted that more than 80 percent of lung cancer cases are attributable to tobacco exposure.
She added that there are a large number of new arrivals in the area. The study will help determine whether those factors can explain the higher rate of lung cancer in the area, she said.
The Delaware Cancer Consortium's environmental committee will discuss the study's methodology at its meeting on Oct. 10. If the full consortium approves the study, it could begin in November,and run through June, Olshefsky said.
The $100,000 study, twice the cost of the original estimate, will be paid for by a combination of state funds and tobacco settlement money.
The Office of Management and Budget identified the state funds, which are available for evaluation of issues and state programs, said Lt. Gov. John Carney, who sought the funding. The Division of Public Health still has to formally request the funding.
"I'm very confident we have the funds available to do this study," Carney said. "It may be that it just gives rise to additional questions, but at least we'll be making progress," he added.
The survey will study four populations: residents of the Indian River area who have been diagnosed with lung cancer since 2004; those in that area with no cancer; residents of
Researchers will attempt to speak with victims of lung cancer and the "first-degree relatives," mainly spouses, of those who have died.
Olshefsky said researchers hope to find at least 150 people in each category. They will use the state's central cancer registry, as well as registries at
The survey will seek respondents' demographic information, occupations, risk behaviors such as smoking and exposure to toxins, and length of residency in the area.
The Indian River area, as defined by this survey, will include the following six ZIP codes: 19939 (Dagsboro), 19945 (Frankford), 19947 (
Contact Aaron Nathans at 324-2786 or anathans@delawareonline.com.
From Green Delaware's Alan Muller: Friday, November 17, 2006
The "multi pollutant" power plant cleanup regulation developed by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) has been signed by Secretary John E. Hughes.
The regulation is to go into effect on December 11, 2006. The first stage of pollution reduction is to be in effect by May 1, 2009, and the second by Jan 1, 2012.
The regulation was weakened in two respects from the "public hearing draft:"
o
o
This regulation is far from perfect--it does not require Delaware's dirty power plants to be brought up to the emission standards of new plants, and does not directly deal with particulate matter (especially PM 2.5).
But, if enforced, and not blocked by appeals, lawsuits, or political intervention,
Green Delaware has supported this regulation as valuable step in the right direction.
The power plants subject to the regulation include Indian River (owned by NRG), McKee Run (owned by the City of Dover) and Edge Moor (owned by Conectiv Generation).
For background see:
Power plant pollution was made a public issue several years ago, partly through the efforts of John Kearney, then representing Clean Air Council in Delaware.
In her Jan 22, 2004 "State of the State" address, Governor Ruth Ann Minner said:
Another major source of industrial pollution in Delaware is the coal-fired commercial power plants in Edgemoor and on the Indian River. Among the pollution emitted by these facilities is mercury, which accumulates in water and can be passed to humans through eating fish and shellfish.
Mercury is especially dangerous to children and pregnant women because of its ability to cause permanent brain damage to young children. It is critical to reduce the amount of mercury emitted in Delaware and to protect Delaware’s children from mercury’s harmful effects.
That’s why I have asked the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control to begin a process to reduce the emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury from Delaware’s commercial power plants. Our goal is to define reductions in these pollutants this year, so that our children will be safer in the years to come.
( http://www.state.
Citizens for Clean power, lead by Kit and Bill Zak, worked hard to raise awareness of the health threats of power plant pollution.
EPA retiree John Austin contributed his technical expertise. He produced data suggesting that Delaware school districts downwind of power plants have more students in "special ed."
In our opinion, much credit is due to air program manager Ali Mirzakhalili along with Ron Amerikian and Robert Clausen of his staff. These folks showed dedication and initiative. Their creation of a web page (link above) helped to "open up" the reg development process.
Mirzakhalili described the regulation as "a major accomplishment for the department and a major pollution reduction that will have big benefits for the people of Delaware." We agree.
Public Health Director Jaime "Gus" Rivera testified in favor of the regulation at a public hearing. This is probably the first time we have ever heard public testimony from a Delaware public health official, at an environmental hearing, about the need to reduce pollution to protect public health.
So far so good. All three power plant owners have been fighting the clean up. Will they now behave responsibly, cease obstruction and foot-dragging, and comply in good faith? We shall see...... Their track record is not good.
Supplement to release
"Allowable" vs "actual" emissions.
DNREC claimed in a press release ( http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/Admin/Press/Story1.asp?PRID=2291 ) and The News Journal reported ( http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061118/NEWS/611180331/1006/NEWS ) that "The regulation will require reductions of mercury emissions of more than 80 percent, and will reduce allowable sulfur dioxide by 87 percent and nitrogen oxides by 76 percent by 2012." (The quote is from the DNREC press release.)This, however, is somewhat misleading unless we realize that "allowable" emissions (essentially, what the plants could belch out if they ran full time at the permit limits) are different than "actual" emissions (what the plants actually DO put out, and determined mostly by how many hours they operate).
The difference is large. For example, using DNREC numbers, allowable emissions of sulfur dioxide in 2002 were 108753 thousand tons (218 million pounds) but actual emissions were 31184 tons (62 million pounds).
DNREC has estimated that actual reductions will be:
Needless to say, it is the "actual" emissions we breathe and suffer the health effects of.
Estimating future actual emissions is difficult because it depends mostly on how much the plants will operate in the future, something not directly under the control of the State.
We hope this illustrates how complex the "numbers game" becomes and how careful one has to be in interpreting claims.
Alan Muller
 |