Pipeline BTUs

[Arch]

eb204 said:

archwinsome said:

True... Let me rephrase: If the site was at Hamman, would the people who are currently in the Anti-NF group be trumpeting to "just build it in the spot they picked" as they are today with the northern site?

I speak only for myself here, but as long as the site is deemed safe, I wouldn't have an issue with it, just as I won't for the Eola site when/if it is deemed safe. Building on the Macom site would probably mean my children would go to WVHS, though, but I'm perfectly fine with that. All schools in this district are, and will be, fine schools if we let the district officials get back to doing their job of educating our children.

I too would have my kids go to any school as long as the site location is as mitigated from any hazards as much as possible. There are built-ins at every location (tornados, etc) and life throws in its own each and every day of life. Accepting more as a default in a site where one does not have to, is, IMO not thinking long term and irresponsible to add risks where there do not need to be any and there are locations without those risks as a built-in.

[momof156graders]

doctorwho said:

steckdad said:

"I agree - let them do their jobs - turn the site over to the IEPA voluntary program and let them actually certify this land is safe ( if they can ) -

Todd DePaul and the SB are not environmental experts"

[/color]

maybe when they actually own the property they will enroll.

[/quote]

the problem is if we own the land when we enroll - we then own the issues. I do not want to see a penny spent on construction until this has been checked to the nth degree since they picked a site that has issues.

The land should be enrolled now- and when the IEPA certifies the safety - after checking for all issues - then proceed with land purchase. These are our tax dollars being bet on an outcome.[/quote]

AGREE!
I am catching up on some posts from last week, and had to agree with the DOC - we shouldn't accept the land until cleared. Warrenville school district went to great lengths to ensure their school would be built on safe land. We should expect the same. Originally we were told that the school would not begin construction until the land was fully remediated. I did not expect that to mean throwing up a fence to block off 17 acres. UNACCEPTABLE! The land should be enrolled now. If Midwest gen was not willing, why not enroll at least the AME portion? They have been very cooperative so far.... The land has not been added to the program yet to the best I can prove. I did FOIA the information. Nothing. Here is a copy of an email from the IEPA as well. We need to question our SB and hold them accountable for these very serious decisions.

From: McMurray, Dennis [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:34 PM
Subject: RE: School District 204


I received a previous email inquiry concerning this issue a week or so ago and since then have been reading some articles in newspapers in your area about it, many of them containing somewhat confusing and contradictory information from the various parties involved. The Midwest Generation (previously Commonwealth Edison) backup high peak-demand natural gas-fueled electric-generating peaker plant on that site had an air pollution control permit from Illinois EPA as a “minor source” of emissions and was rarely operated and has since been demolished and removed, I am advised, so therefore air emissions are now zero and no permit is required. IEPA has no other legal jurisdiction involving the site at this time. We have noticed that individuals with the school district and/or its project manager have been quoted in newspaper articles as saying any potential needed soil remediation would be overseen and approved by the Illinois EPA before the project went forward. However, in order for that to occur, the site would have to be entered by the owner into the IEPA voluntary Site Remediation Program, along with any required fees, and would have to meet our technical requirements and oversight for meeting the stated cleanup objectives under TACO (Tiered Approach to Corrective Action Objectives) in order to receive a No Further Remediation determination (sometimes called a “clean letter”). Thus far, according to the most recent check by the program manager earlier this week, the site has not been entered into that program. IEPA has no legal jurisdiction or authority regarding electromagnetic lines, location of pipelines, or vehicle and railroad traffic. However, you may wish to contact the Division of Nuclear Safety in the Illinois Emergency Management Agency for any scientific information they may have regarding electromagnetic fields. You also mentioned environmental studies had not been released. As I suggested to the previous writer who inquired about this issue, you certainly have the option of submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to the school district for that information, if you wish to do so.

[d204mom]

momof156graders said:

From: McMurray, Dennis [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:34 PM
Subject: RE: School District 204


I received a previous email inquiry concerning this issue a week or so ago and since then have been reading some articles in newspapers in your area about it, many of them containing somewhat confusing and contradictory information from the various parties involved. The Midwest Generation (previously Commonwealth Edison) backup high peak-demand natural gas-fueled electric-generating peaker plant on that site had an air pollution control permit from Illinois EPA as a “minor source” of emissions and was rarely operated and has since been demolished and removed, I am advised, so therefore air emissions are now zero and no permit is required. IEPA has no other legal jurisdiction involving the site at this time. We have noticed that individuals with the school district and/or its project manager have been quoted in newspaper articles as saying any potential needed soil remediation would be overseen and approved by the Illinois EPA before the project went forward. However, in order for that to occur, the site would have to be entered by the owner into the IEPA voluntary Site Remediation Program, along with any required fees, and would have to meet our technical requirements and oversight for meeting the stated cleanup objectives under TACO (Tiered Approach to Corrective Action Objectives) in order to receive a No Further Remediation determination (sometimes called a “clean letter”). Thus far, according to the most recent check by the program manager earlier this week, the site has not been entered into that program. IEPA has no legal jurisdiction or authority regarding electromagnetic lines, location of pipelines, or vehicle and railroad traffic. However, you may wish to contact the Division of Nuclear Safety in the Illinois Emergency Management Agency for any scientific information they may have regarding electromagnetic fields. You also mentioned environmental studies had not been released. As I suggested to the previous writer who inquired about this issue, you certainly have the option of submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to the school district for that information, if you wish to do so.

Thanks for posting this.

Do they think we're morons? I mean, really, after they got caught misrepresenting Macom and the Park District, do they really think we're going to "take their word for it" from here on out?

[momto4]

eb204 said:

archwinsome said:

True... Let me rephrase: If the site was at Hamman, would the people who are currently in the Anti-NF group be trumpeting to "just build it in the spot they picked" as they are today with the northern site?

I speak only for myself here, but as long as the site is deemed safe, I wouldn't have an issue with it, just as I won't for the Eola site when/if it is deemed safe. Building on the Macom site would probably mean my children would go to WVHS, though, but I'm perfectly fine with that. All schools in this district are, and will be, fine schools if we let the district officials get back to doing their job of educating our children.

I agree with eb204. We need the school. My kids will be fine at WV or MV.

Hard to say about the anti-nsfoc since we don't really know who all is part of the group. However, I expect there would be no lawsuit and therefore no need for any group to form in response. Even though it seems that the sites in the south have potential environmental concerns of their own.

[Arch]

momto4 said:

eb204 said:

I speak only for myself here, but as long as the site is deemed safe, I wouldn't have an issue with it, just as I won't for the Eola site when/if it is deemed safe. Building on the Macom site would probably mean my children would go to WVHS, though, but I'm perfectly fine with that. All schools in this district are, and will be, fine schools if we let the district officials get back to doing their job of educating our children.

I agree with eb204. We need the school. My kids will be fine at WV or MV.

Hard to say about the anti-nsfoc since we don't really know who all is part of the group. However, I expect there would be no lawsuit and therefore no need for any group to form in response. Even though it seems that the sites in the south have potential environmental concerns of their own.

Absent any 'group', their opinions about sites are in the archives here.

[rew]

How do you think the district will respond to parents who object to sending their kids to the school? Will there be an allowance for someone who feels their child's safety is being compromised? A kind of "conscientious objector"?

What if another study comes out that says EMFs are bad? When the mold problem occurred in St Charles, the students "doubled up" at the other HS while the problem was mitigated. But what if some new findings raised more questions about EMFs? Is there anything that can be done? I read one article that said EMFs penetrate everything

[Arch]

rew said:

How do you think the district will respond to parents who object to sending their kids to the school? Will there be an allowance for someone who feels their child's safety is being compromised? A kind of "conscientious objector"?

What if another study comes out that says EMFs are bad? When the mold problem occurred in St Charles, the students "doubled up" at the other HS while the problem was mitigated. But what if some new findings raised more questions about EMFs? Is there anything that can be done? I read one article that said EMFs penetrate everything

See the 30" pipeline burn radius in Carlsbad?

[momto4]

rew said:

What if another study comes out that says EMFs are bad? When the mold problem occurred in St Charles, the students "doubled up" at the other HS while the problem was mitigated. But what if some new findings raised more questions about EMFs? Is there anything that can be done? I read one article that said EMFs penetrate everything

I thought the levels at this school would be the same as or close to the same as it is at other schools and in homes. If it turns out that EMFs are bad, where can we go to get away from them? How is this related to this particular school site?

[concerned2]

I just found out that my Aunt has some disorder with her platelets. It effects 1 in 100,000, this disorder was caused by EMF's.

With investigation she found out with the grounding and the fact that the room her computer was in had a cement floor underneath her carpet, it caused her computer to throw high EMF's. I found this to be very scary. So yes, just sitting in front of your computer can make you sick.

[doctorwho]

momto4 said:

rew said:

What if another study comes out that says EMFs are bad? When the mold problem occurred in St Charles, the students "doubled up" at the other HS while the problem was mitigated. But what if some new findings raised more questions about EMFs? Is there anything that can be done? I read one article that said EMFs penetrate everything

I thought the levels at this school would be the same as or close to the same as it is at other schools and in homes. If it turns out that EMFs are bad, where can we go to get away from them? How is this related to this particular school site?

How can we look at where the football stadium will be and ask this question ?

[Arch]

doctorwho said:

momto4 said:

I thought the levels at this school would be the same as or close to the same as it is at other schools and in homes. If it turns out that EMFs are bad, where can we go to get away from them? How is this related to this particular school site?

How can we look at where the football stadium will be and ask this question ?

Is that the place that will be occupied only 'briefly' ?

[rew]

I believe the "average" was normal, but are there not "hot spots" of much higher concentrations? Also the levels were taken close to the ground...what if they turn out to be higher on the second floor of the school, closer to the level of the power lines?

[doctorwho]

rew said:

I believe the "average" was normal, but are there not "hot spots" of much higher concentrations? Also the levels were taken close to the ground...what if they turn out to be higher on the second floor of the school, closer to the level of the power lines?

when full power running thru those peaker lines

I don't think one has to be a rocket scientist or an EE to just take one visual look around and say, sorry, not here .

[Arch]

doctorwho said:

rew said:

I believe the "average" was normal, but are there not "hot spots" of much higher concentrations? Also the levels were taken close to the ground...what if they turn out to be higher on the second floor of the school, closer to the level of the power lines?

when full power running thru those peaker lines

I don't think one has to be a rocket scientist or an EE to just take one visual look around and say, sorry, not here .

They're not peaker lines, they actually draw from Dresden nuclear station south of here (the lines by the tracks) and some on the north side pull from as far as sterling/Rock falls wind farm and Morris I believe.

[rew]

I do think that's interesting, MT4. I never heard any comparidon to the other schools??? Where did you hear that?

I remember thinking that if the "average" EMFs on Eola, as an empty site, were equivalent to"normal household averages", with all the aplliances and wiring present, I assumed once the school was built on the site with all it's electrical wiring, the building EMFs would go higher?

Did they compare EMFs to other empty sites? I would think an empty site doesn't generate EMFs, only what surrounds it or runs beneath it?