[Mpls] Re: stadium

[David Brauer]

Giving credit where credit is due...

On May 2, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Justin Eibensteiner wrote:

Regarding the burner's plume...

> The basic point of contention is that the studies are theoretical and 
> not empirical.  <snip>
> Since none of this work has been done, the public has no way of 
> gauging their exposure based on on any real data.

Absolutely right. The only study was modeling done before HERC opened. 
While I'm not aware of a detailed critique of that modeling, there is 
no study of actual emission dispersal, so I concede Justin's point and 
will be more circumspect about future claims of where stuff ends up.

> If you check with Minneapolis Environmental Management you'll find 
> that the incerator pollution controls fail from time to time (to the 
> point of getting fined significantly), meaning anyone in the vicinity 
> may be getting more bad air then they bargained for on the wrong day.

I checked. The last HERC failure was in 1999 - a scrubber failure that 
lasted less than a day, causing a hydrogen chloride violation. The 
plant was fined $22,000. Since then - more than six years - no 
violations or failures. I think the odds are with the fans here.

> Another bonus for the incinerator is due to the fact they are 
> considered a waste treatment facility they do not have to disclose 
> their emissions to the Toxic Release Inventory--creating even less 
> public transparency.

The plant does report emissions, which are publicly available, as noted 
earlier. I don't think there's anything furtive here.

Fundamentally, I think the burner argument is a red herring in this 
debate. It's easy to fixate on a high-profile point source that 
probably pumps out less harmful junk than the tailpipes of the cars 
fans drive to the game - and certainly than a coal-fired plant, of 
which there are several in the Twin Cities.

David Brauer
Kingfield