Showing posts with label Citizens for a Better Brockon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Citizens for a Better Brockon. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Paul Beckner's Platform for a Better Brockton
BECKNER FOR A BETTER BROCKTON!
As City-wide Councilors we need to collaborate on ideas together by using social media, being visible in the community, visiting homes and promoting group block meetings not just Ward meetings. Interaction with all of our diverse community leaders is imperative in order to accomplish our objective to bring our community together as one collective, vibrant, innovative and compassionate force pulling together to promote economic growth and safer community to live in.
A. Pairing together with business leaders and the new City Planner, we need an immediate restructuring of the heart of our Main Street area beginning with returning the area from Court St. to Belmont St. back into two way traffic. This would likely mean changing other streets such as Belmont St. from Warren Ave to Main St. and Warren Ave itself. I would propose a program where we could ask for sponsorship from wealthy individuals to maintain our roads and restructure Main St. In return we could co-name the streets that are sponsored after the sponsoring party.
B. As for Safety; adding more Police is a huge priority. We should consider a “closing down” of our entire City at 2:00am. (This was a suggestion from a concerned citizen). This would show a seriousness and absolute commitment to making our City a safer more respectable place to live. Gangs and groups of youths and young adults wanting to hang around while awaiting disturbances to break out will be disbursed. The influx of the criminal element coming to Brockton at all hours of the night and morning will be lessened and Brockton will be less inviting to those peddling drugs, prostitution and desiring to commit criminal acts. In addition; adding a mandatory course to our school curriculum concerning Violence and Lawlessness and how it affects not just the victim and their family but also the perpetrators family and the community as a whole, while inviting guest speakers into the classroom to tell of their experiences with Violence and Lawlessness would have immeasurable effects on preventing root of crime.
C. Finding new ways of creating revenue for our City can be done again through collaborating and soliciting ideas. I have several that have been proposed to me but I do not feel that they are a solution yet but rather viable “last resorts”. We can maximize our collection of fines and moving violations and maximize our share of the revenues from such. This would require lobbying the State. We can ask for emergency funds to help with crime. This is not to mention the $millions that our CFO has stashed away in investments but is reluctant to use. I should note; that I spent 3.5 hours with our CFO, Mr. Condon studying our City budget and I have learned a little something by running an $11 million retail store over the years.
D. We need to start the New Year and the New Council by pledging to stall the continuing march on raising property taxes every year. I pledge to never vote for a tax hike while on our City Council. I will never vote for a budget that contains a tax hike without the consent of the people. (I don’t envision that happening) We need to force the hand of Aquaria and throw that Desalination Plant, contract away. Power Plant notwithstanding, it will bring us $6.2 million and let us begin the road to putting that fiasco behind us. We can then start anew to plan for a back-up water source and perhaps a power source that will benefit Brockton by helping to lower our electric bills.
E. The Stonehill contract needs to be settled ASAP….Dragged out negotiating? It’s getting nowhere and still costing us money with each passing day. And the Rox Stadium and the Conference Center should be sold to private investors.
F. We need to begin cutting back on subsidized housing and the construction of such. As compassionate as it is, Brockton has done its share and it is sucking the life force from our City. We need to rebound and grow economically and community-wise before taking on any more affordable housing units. Truth be told; the waiting list for these units will never subside but will only continue to grow if we continue to embrace, this situation. Our hearts bleed for these people as we all should, but it’s time for other surrounding communities to step up to the plate and to share in the burden of this compassionate effort.
***These were a few of my ideas and the ideas of others who have expressed their thoughts to me. I will continue to post more as they come along. We need to promote more community participation and I will encourage your participation when I am elected by expanding interactive social media and having more face to face meetings with our citizens.
God Bless all our many and various religious and civic organizations.
Paul Beckner
WWW.PAULBECKNER.COM
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Carpenter announces his plan to fight crime, telling residents that "Help is on the way."
 |
| http://billcarpenterformayor.com |
"The City of Brockton is at a crossroads. We will either roll over and let the criminals take control of our city or we will fight back. I choose to fight back!" said Carpenter. "We will take back our neighborhoods, block by block."
At the heart of the Carpenter 10-point plan is the following:
1. Relentless Pursuit: We will relentlessly, aggressively pursue, remove and prosecute every gang member, thug, pimp and drug dealer in the City of Brockton.
2. Saturated Enforcement: Increase police presence using motorcycle patrols and deploy traffic units to conduct motor vehicle stops in high gang/high crime areas. Utilize every available resource to take back control of the city.
3. Counter-Insurgency Techniques: Adopt counter-insurgency tactics, similar to those used by the U.S. Military in Iraq, to identify and remove urban terrorists from our neighborhoods.
4. Community Police: Every Brockton Police Officer will be a Community Police Officer, working within the community to establish a partnership with the residents of Brockton to fight crime in every neighborhood.
5. Community Involvement: Establish a Street Leader Program, Neighborhood Walks, and distribute materials to residents in multiple languages. Re-launch and promote a “Text a Tip” program, for anonymous reporting of information to police.
6. Police Hiring Plan: Create an aggressive hiring plan to increase the size of the Brockton PD. Proactive Policing will require more “boots on the ground”.
7. Quality of Life: Utilize City Ordinances to conduct Quality of Life Enforcement Campaigns in target neighborhoods. Enforce Loitering, Public Drinking, and Noise Ordinances. Apply the City’s Nuisance Ordinance to remove graffiti, junk vehicles and secure and clean up abandoned homes.
8. Drug Court: Work with State and County leaders to establish a Plymouth County Drug Court in Brockton. 90% of property crime is committed by people stealing to support a drug/alcohol addiction.
9. Community Forums/Programs: Establish regular community forums, meet with civic associations, faith-based groups and newly organized neighborhood associations. Develop & expand community based programs geared toward young people at risk.
10. G.R.E.A.T Program: Re-implement the G.R.E.A.T Program (Gang Resistance Education & Training) in the Brockton Public Schools as the first step in implementing anti-gang and anti-drug curriculum into our Middle and Elementary schools.
Carpenter also announced on Thursday that former Boston Police Deputy Superintendent Robert Hayden, has joined the campaign as his Special Advisor on Public Safety. Hayden is credited with creating Boston's first city-wide anti-crime gang unit. Hayden is also the former police chief in the City of Lawrence. He also served as Under-Secretary of Public Safety within the administration of the late Governor Paul Cellucci.
"The essence of any successful crime plan is to be relentless," said Hayden. "It is relentless pressure on criminals 24/7. We do that by using every available resource to take control back of the city. You send the message to the criminal element that their actions will not be tolerated and they will be arrested and relocated to a jail cell."
While all the candidates for mayor in Brockton support putting more police officers on the street, Carpenter believes he is the only candidate who has put forth a financial plan to fund the additional boots on the ground.
"I will aggressively develop our water, sewer and electricity resources to generate the revenue necessary to provide real property tax relief and put 50 more police officers on Brockton’s streets." said Carpenter. "The Brockton Police Department is drastically understaffed and there has been no attempt by the Balzotti administration in the past four years to put more officers on the streets.”
Thursday, December 16, 2010
CITIZENS FOR A BETTER BROCKTON CALL ON GOVERNOR PATRICK
December 12, 2010
The Honorable Deval Patrick
Governor State of Massachusetts
Massachusetts State House
Office of the Governor
Room 280
Boston, MA 02133
Dear Gov. Patrick:
We, the Citizens for a Better Brockton (CBB) and the Undersigned, respectfully request that you ban the construction of a gas-fired power plant being proposed for Oak Hill Way in Brockton.
The proposed plant is slated to be constructed on a 13.2-acre site located within view of homes, a 60-unit apartment complex, two elderly-housing hi-rise projects, a commuter-rail line, two 55-and-older mobile home parks, an elementary school, a licensed daycare center and a busy business district along a portion of the city's main street.
The large-scale project would also be located within a community determined by the state to be an environmental-justice community.
After three years of extensive research, discussion and careful observation in relation to the project, we have concluded that federal and state safeguards, policies and regulations are not adequate to protect the health and safety of the citizens of the greater Brockton area if the power plant is constructed as planned.
Enclosed you will find several examples relating to this oversight on the part of the state, as it relates to the proposed plant on Oak Hill Way in Brockton.
We feel that protection of our present quality of life and our safety far outweigh any benefits derived from the project.
We also feel that current requirements by the state, in relation to site selection, are flawed.- in relation to the environmental impact report (EIR) relating to the project and state Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) approval.
At the present time, the state requires that the proponent of projects, such as Brockton Power Company LLC, submit only one site plan for review. Alternate site plans, that might be less invasive to surrounding communities, are not required.
In the event of a catastrophic event, such as that which recently occurred at the power plant in Connecticut, it doesn't take much imagination to estimate the resulting damage and potential carnage from such an explosion at a plant such as one being proposed for the city of Brockton.
And this is not taking into account the day-to-day effect on surrounding communities as a result of emissions from the plant and regular use of duct firing.
Our studies have indicated that duct firing is considered an optional procedure by a power company and that it is used, primarily, to reduce capital costs.
According to a Major Comprehensive Plan Application (MCPA) submitted by Brockton Power to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, duct-firing will result in a dramatic increase of harmful air pollutants, or volatile organic compounds (VOC).
This procedure will also release high amounts of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) - in excess of guidelines established by federal national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) - and it is one of the contributors to ground-level ozone, sometimes referred to as smog, and they are highly toxic. (See: 6)
As you know, Massachusetts already exceeds NAAQS guidelines relating to ozone and that the state is now considered to be in nonattainment.
Because of this fact, the state should be working to ensure that any new power plant coming online does not exacerbate the state's already higher-than-average ozone levels.
We would like to make you aware of the fact that representatives of the proposed power plant in Brockton have stated that they plan to duct fire 2,000 hours per year, with most of this occurring during peak usage times or during the summer months when ozone levels are at their highest within the state.
Ozone is known to cause death and serious heart and lung problems according to 18 of the top health organizations within the country, including the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association.
In a letter forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency in March 2010 and signed by all 18 health organizations, EPA was urged to work harder to protect the public from the occurrence of ozone by lowering allowable limits or standards currently in place under the Clean Air Act.
The letter claimed that current ozone standards, were not protective enough of human health and the environment especially to children, seniors, outdoor workers and people with asthma and other lung diseases.
It should be noted that NAAQS standards were established to protect public health within an adequate margin of safety. But according to the letter, and a follow-up letter from the American Lung Association, current NAAQS do not adequately protect public health ( See: 1 and 2 )
It should also be noted that in Massachusetts, ozone levels are higher than current national standards.
Because of this, we feel that the health of the citizens of Brockton - who already are above the state average, as far as heart and lung related emergency rooms visits and hospitalization and asthma are concerned - will be further compromised due to the proposed power plant and resulting duct firing as a regular procedure associated with the plant.
Under the Clean Air Act, the citizens of Brockton have the right to breath clean air and this right should be protected by those who have taken an oath of office to protect the health and safety of all citizens of the commonwealth regardless of social status or income.
Other grave concerns relating to the proposed Brockton power plant include:
The fact that meteorological data or modeling for the project was collected from Logan Airport, a site that lacks conditions of stagnant air such as that found at the inland site in Brockton.
Because of this, concentrated levels of pollution - released as a result of duct firing and general operation of the plant - would not disperse at the same level of safety as that existing at Logan Airport.
Please read:
Documents submitted to EFSB by Paul Eisen, CCM, principal scientist at Roux Associates, N.Y. (See: 8)
Testimony provided to EFSB by Johnathon Levy, Ph.D, of Harvard School of Public Health. (See: 3)
These documents and testimony to EFSB state that meteorological modeling data, collected from Logan Airport, and used for modeling to determine dispersion rates of emissions estimates for the Brockton project, is faulty. They point out that the modeling being used by the company does not accurately represent air conditions for the site in Brockton.
We feel that, as a result of this disparity, Brockton residents are at greater risk of harm from emissions from the proposed plant than what is being reported by the company to the state.
We feel that concerns expressed by national health organizations, in relation to ozone, and concerns expressed by local experts, in relation to the proposed power plant in Brockton, validate our concerns relating to the project.
And we feel that these concerns have been grossly minimized by the state, and, in some cases, completely ignored.
We are requesting that you, as governor of the state of Massachusetts: implement:
All aspects of the national Environmental Justice (EJ), Executive Order 12898;
All aspects of the Massachusetts EJ Policy; and
Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (See: 5)
We are requesting this in order to ensure that Brockton is not discriminated against in regards to the siting of the proposed Brockton plant and does not suffer another indignity through a disproportionate environmental burden imposed upon the citizens of the community through the siting of another stationary and major source of pollution.
On several occasions, we have requested that the state consider its current policy, as it relates to environmental justice and the decision-making process associated with the siting of a power plant within the city of Brockton.
But each time our requests have been ignored or diverted.
The state's EJ policy clearly states that no one community shall have to bear a disproportionate amount of pollution compared with other communities in the state.
Historically, the grassroots movement was to ensure that people of color, minorities and low-income communities should not have to bear a disproportionate share of industrial pollution.
In 1994, President William Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations."
The order, in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, directs federal agencies to address environmental justice in their operations and in communities across the country.
The order also directs that states and municipalities develop policies and programs to address environmental-equity concerns., ensuring that minority and low-income communties are not disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards.
According to several recent studies on the unequal exposure of environmental hazards in EJ communities throughout Massachusetts, including a Brockton study entitled: The Proposed Brockton Power Plant: Disparities in Brockton, MA, the city ranked 9th most extensively environmentally overburdened out of a total of 362 communities. Based on environmental hazard points per cities and towns in the state, Brockton had a total of 709 hazard points compared to a statewide average of 166 points. The study, dated March 2008, cited Brockton as having 43,040 industrial chemical emissions or releases per square mile compared to 12, 656 chemical releases per sqare mile in high income towns. (See: 4)
As a result of these and other findings, we ask that the proposed power plant, considered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under New Source Review (NSR) program guidelines as a new major stationary source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) pollution, not be allowed in Brockton. (See: 6)
In relation to our right to public safety, we respectfully request that you and your administration look into the process of “gas blow,” as way of clearing lines at a power plant through the use of flammable natural gas.
And we request that you review current state safety codes - relating to both construction and operation of gas plants within the state that are located within one mile of heavily-populated areas.
Gas blow, using flammable natural gas as a purging tool, is a highly risky procedure and should be stopped immediately.
This was the same procedure used at the power plant in Middletown, CT, on February 7, 2010 that resulted in a massive explosion, six deaths and 50 injuries. If this had occurred in a densely-populated area such as Brockton, the results would have been devastating.
The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) report relating to the Connecticut incident, revealed that 225 of 371 safety violations associated with the explosion were found by OSHA to be willful and deliberate. As a result of this, $16.6 million in fines were issued to companies involved in construction of the plant.
In Massachusetts, there are currently no federal or state safety regulations or oversight in place relating to gas blow or any other risky procedure associated with gas-fired power plants during the construction process.
We also feel that state safety codes and oversight, during the operation of such plants, are currently too lax. They offer little in the way of protection of the general public, especially when there is little or no buffer zone between the general population and the power plant.
We respectfully request that you, like former Connecticut governor Jodi Rell, issue a temporary executive order banning the practice of gas blow at gas-fired power plants in the state until a permanent ban on the practice is in place. (See: 7)
We are urging that you, as governor in the state of Massachusetts, use your power to protect our right to say no to the proposed plant in Brockton and our right to breath clean air without interference or compromise on our part.
We are requesting that you respect and protect the rights of the citizens of an environmental-justice community - who are either uninformed about the issues surrounding construction of a fossil-fuel burning power plant in their midst, or who are unable to speak on their own behalf - while there is still time and before this plant, constructed while on your watch as governor, looms over the city as a last reminder of the use of fossil fuel.
We are respectfully requesting that this terrible injustice to the citizens of Brockton, a community typically targeted for the siting of toxic industrial sites, be halted now by those in power who are able, in good conscience, to still do so.
Respectfully,
Virginia Jeppson Pres./CBB
Citizens for a Better Brockton and the Undersigned
Mayor Linda Balzotti
State Representative Michael Brady, 9th Plymouth District
Ronald A. Bethoney, President Campello Business Assoc.
Francis Pina, Community Organizer/ NAACP
Theresa McNulty, Chair East Bridgewater Board of Selectmen
Rev. Filipe Teixeira, Bishop Diocese of St. Francis of Assisi
Eldon Moreira, Chair West Bridgewater Board of Selectmen
1.(http://www.lungusa.org/get-involved/advocate/advocacy-documents/organizational-sign-on-for.pdf)
2.(http://www.lungusa.org/press-room/press-releases/unacceptable-ozone-delay-puts.html)
3.(EFSB 07-7/PDU 07-58/DPU 07-59)
4.(EFSB 07-7/DPU 07-58/DPU 07-59)-(The Proposed Brockton Power Plant:Disparities in Brockton, MA).
5.( http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=2&L0=Home&L1=Grants+%26+Technical+Assistance&sid=Eoeea&b=terminalcontent&f=eea_sgse_env_equity&csid=Eoeea)
6.(http://www.epa.gov/oar/tribal/pdfs/nsrbasicsfactsheet103106.pdf )
7.(www.wfsb.com/25104180/detail.html)
8. p://db.state.ma.us/dpu/qorders/frmDocketSingle.asp?docknum=EFSB07-7A/07-58/59
The Honorable Deval Patrick
Governor State of Massachusetts
Massachusetts State House
Office of the Governor
Room 280
Boston, MA 02133
Dear Gov. Patrick:
We, the Citizens for a Better Brockton (CBB) and the Undersigned, respectfully request that you ban the construction of a gas-fired power plant being proposed for Oak Hill Way in Brockton.
The proposed plant is slated to be constructed on a 13.2-acre site located within view of homes, a 60-unit apartment complex, two elderly-housing hi-rise projects, a commuter-rail line, two 55-and-older mobile home parks, an elementary school, a licensed daycare center and a busy business district along a portion of the city's main street.
The large-scale project would also be located within a community determined by the state to be an environmental-justice community.
After three years of extensive research, discussion and careful observation in relation to the project, we have concluded that federal and state safeguards, policies and regulations are not adequate to protect the health and safety of the citizens of the greater Brockton area if the power plant is constructed as planned.
Enclosed you will find several examples relating to this oversight on the part of the state, as it relates to the proposed plant on Oak Hill Way in Brockton.
We feel that protection of our present quality of life and our safety far outweigh any benefits derived from the project.
We also feel that current requirements by the state, in relation to site selection, are flawed.- in relation to the environmental impact report (EIR) relating to the project and state Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) approval.
At the present time, the state requires that the proponent of projects, such as Brockton Power Company LLC, submit only one site plan for review. Alternate site plans, that might be less invasive to surrounding communities, are not required.
In the event of a catastrophic event, such as that which recently occurred at the power plant in Connecticut, it doesn't take much imagination to estimate the resulting damage and potential carnage from such an explosion at a plant such as one being proposed for the city of Brockton.
And this is not taking into account the day-to-day effect on surrounding communities as a result of emissions from the plant and regular use of duct firing.
Our studies have indicated that duct firing is considered an optional procedure by a power company and that it is used, primarily, to reduce capital costs.
According to a Major Comprehensive Plan Application (MCPA) submitted by Brockton Power to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, duct-firing will result in a dramatic increase of harmful air pollutants, or volatile organic compounds (VOC).
This procedure will also release high amounts of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) - in excess of guidelines established by federal national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) - and it is one of the contributors to ground-level ozone, sometimes referred to as smog, and they are highly toxic. (See: 6)
As you know, Massachusetts already exceeds NAAQS guidelines relating to ozone and that the state is now considered to be in nonattainment.
Because of this fact, the state should be working to ensure that any new power plant coming online does not exacerbate the state's already higher-than-average ozone levels.
We would like to make you aware of the fact that representatives of the proposed power plant in Brockton have stated that they plan to duct fire 2,000 hours per year, with most of this occurring during peak usage times or during the summer months when ozone levels are at their highest within the state.
Ozone is known to cause death and serious heart and lung problems according to 18 of the top health organizations within the country, including the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association.
In a letter forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency in March 2010 and signed by all 18 health organizations, EPA was urged to work harder to protect the public from the occurrence of ozone by lowering allowable limits or standards currently in place under the Clean Air Act.
The letter claimed that current ozone standards, were not protective enough of human health and the environment especially to children, seniors, outdoor workers and people with asthma and other lung diseases.
It should be noted that NAAQS standards were established to protect public health within an adequate margin of safety. But according to the letter, and a follow-up letter from the American Lung Association, current NAAQS do not adequately protect public health ( See: 1 and 2 )
It should also be noted that in Massachusetts, ozone levels are higher than current national standards.
Because of this, we feel that the health of the citizens of Brockton - who already are above the state average, as far as heart and lung related emergency rooms visits and hospitalization and asthma are concerned - will be further compromised due to the proposed power plant and resulting duct firing as a regular procedure associated with the plant.
Under the Clean Air Act, the citizens of Brockton have the right to breath clean air and this right should be protected by those who have taken an oath of office to protect the health and safety of all citizens of the commonwealth regardless of social status or income.
Other grave concerns relating to the proposed Brockton power plant include:
The fact that meteorological data or modeling for the project was collected from Logan Airport, a site that lacks conditions of stagnant air such as that found at the inland site in Brockton.
Because of this, concentrated levels of pollution - released as a result of duct firing and general operation of the plant - would not disperse at the same level of safety as that existing at Logan Airport.
Please read:
Documents submitted to EFSB by Paul Eisen, CCM, principal scientist at Roux Associates, N.Y. (See: 8)
Testimony provided to EFSB by Johnathon Levy, Ph.D, of Harvard School of Public Health. (See: 3)
These documents and testimony to EFSB state that meteorological modeling data, collected from Logan Airport, and used for modeling to determine dispersion rates of emissions estimates for the Brockton project, is faulty. They point out that the modeling being used by the company does not accurately represent air conditions for the site in Brockton.
We feel that, as a result of this disparity, Brockton residents are at greater risk of harm from emissions from the proposed plant than what is being reported by the company to the state.
We feel that concerns expressed by national health organizations, in relation to ozone, and concerns expressed by local experts, in relation to the proposed power plant in Brockton, validate our concerns relating to the project.
And we feel that these concerns have been grossly minimized by the state, and, in some cases, completely ignored.
We are requesting that you, as governor of the state of Massachusetts: implement:
All aspects of the national Environmental Justice (EJ), Executive Order 12898;
All aspects of the Massachusetts EJ Policy; and
Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (See: 5)
We are requesting this in order to ensure that Brockton is not discriminated against in regards to the siting of the proposed Brockton plant and does not suffer another indignity through a disproportionate environmental burden imposed upon the citizens of the community through the siting of another stationary and major source of pollution.
On several occasions, we have requested that the state consider its current policy, as it relates to environmental justice and the decision-making process associated with the siting of a power plant within the city of Brockton.
But each time our requests have been ignored or diverted.
The state's EJ policy clearly states that no one community shall have to bear a disproportionate amount of pollution compared with other communities in the state.
Historically, the grassroots movement was to ensure that people of color, minorities and low-income communities should not have to bear a disproportionate share of industrial pollution.
In 1994, President William Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations."
The order, in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, directs federal agencies to address environmental justice in their operations and in communities across the country.
The order also directs that states and municipalities develop policies and programs to address environmental-equity concerns., ensuring that minority and low-income communties are not disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards.
According to several recent studies on the unequal exposure of environmental hazards in EJ communities throughout Massachusetts, including a Brockton study entitled: The Proposed Brockton Power Plant: Disparities in Brockton, MA, the city ranked 9th most extensively environmentally overburdened out of a total of 362 communities. Based on environmental hazard points per cities and towns in the state, Brockton had a total of 709 hazard points compared to a statewide average of 166 points. The study, dated March 2008, cited Brockton as having 43,040 industrial chemical emissions or releases per square mile compared to 12, 656 chemical releases per sqare mile in high income towns. (See: 4)
As a result of these and other findings, we ask that the proposed power plant, considered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under New Source Review (NSR) program guidelines as a new major stationary source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) pollution, not be allowed in Brockton. (See: 6)
In relation to our right to public safety, we respectfully request that you and your administration look into the process of “gas blow,” as way of clearing lines at a power plant through the use of flammable natural gas.
And we request that you review current state safety codes - relating to both construction and operation of gas plants within the state that are located within one mile of heavily-populated areas.
Gas blow, using flammable natural gas as a purging tool, is a highly risky procedure and should be stopped immediately.
This was the same procedure used at the power plant in Middletown, CT, on February 7, 2010 that resulted in a massive explosion, six deaths and 50 injuries. If this had occurred in a densely-populated area such as Brockton, the results would have been devastating.
The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) report relating to the Connecticut incident, revealed that 225 of 371 safety violations associated with the explosion were found by OSHA to be willful and deliberate. As a result of this, $16.6 million in fines were issued to companies involved in construction of the plant.
In Massachusetts, there are currently no federal or state safety regulations or oversight in place relating to gas blow or any other risky procedure associated with gas-fired power plants during the construction process.
We also feel that state safety codes and oversight, during the operation of such plants, are currently too lax. They offer little in the way of protection of the general public, especially when there is little or no buffer zone between the general population and the power plant.
We respectfully request that you, like former Connecticut governor Jodi Rell, issue a temporary executive order banning the practice of gas blow at gas-fired power plants in the state until a permanent ban on the practice is in place. (See: 7)
We are urging that you, as governor in the state of Massachusetts, use your power to protect our right to say no to the proposed plant in Brockton and our right to breath clean air without interference or compromise on our part.
We are requesting that you respect and protect the rights of the citizens of an environmental-justice community - who are either uninformed about the issues surrounding construction of a fossil-fuel burning power plant in their midst, or who are unable to speak on their own behalf - while there is still time and before this plant, constructed while on your watch as governor, looms over the city as a last reminder of the use of fossil fuel.
We are respectfully requesting that this terrible injustice to the citizens of Brockton, a community typically targeted for the siting of toxic industrial sites, be halted now by those in power who are able, in good conscience, to still do so.
Respectfully,
Virginia Jeppson Pres./CBB
Citizens for a Better Brockton and the Undersigned
Mayor Linda Balzotti
State Representative Michael Brady, 9th Plymouth District
Ronald A. Bethoney, President Campello Business Assoc.
Francis Pina, Community Organizer/ NAACP
Theresa McNulty, Chair East Bridgewater Board of Selectmen
Rev. Filipe Teixeira, Bishop Diocese of St. Francis of Assisi
Eldon Moreira, Chair West Bridgewater Board of Selectmen
1.(http://www.lungusa.org/get-involved/advocate/advocacy-documents/organizational-sign-on-for.pdf)
2.(http://www.lungusa.org/press-room/press-releases/unacceptable-ozone-delay-puts.html)
3.(EFSB 07-7/PDU 07-58/DPU 07-59)
4.(EFSB 07-7/DPU 07-58/DPU 07-59)-(The Proposed Brockton Power Plant:Disparities in Brockton, MA).
5.( http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=2&L0=Home&L1=Grants+%26+Technical+Assistance&sid=Eoeea&b=terminalcontent&f=eea_sgse_env_equity&csid=Eoeea)
6.(http://www.epa.gov/oar/tribal/pdfs/nsrbasicsfactsheet103106.pdf )
7.(www.wfsb.com/25104180/detail.html)
8. p://db.state.ma.us/dpu/qorders/frmDocketSingle.asp?docknum=EFSB07-7A/07-58/59
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)