|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 31, 2008 10:14:49 GMT -6
Arch, I'm wondering if when they remove (guessing) 5 feet deep of soil around the affected area, aren't they taking whatever else is there with them, whether they tested for it or not? Only if everything stops at 5 feet and only if everything is within that area and not elsewhere at any other depths. Diesel oil would seep, it's a liquid. Would other chemicals you are concerned about seep also? (I am clueless). |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 31, 2008 10:19:52 GMT -6
Only if everything stops at 5 feet and only if everything is within that area and not elsewhere at any other depths. Diesel oil would seep, it's a liquid. Would other chemicals you are concerned about seep also? (I am clueless). I would imagine some would be carried by rain water. It would be nice to have the raw phase2 data to go through to see what was tested for and what was found where. *twiddle thumbs* |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 31, 2008 10:22:50 GMT -6
Did the pipeline company say how often they have to 'pack the pipes' to sustain the pressure drop/product draw from the Reliant peaker to the north? Packing the pipe is an industry term of boosting the pressure in the line so that other customers do not feel a gas pressure drop when a high-volume customer takes a large sudden draw of product at high pressure. This is a standard practice used by the gas companies for the pipes where peakers pull from. I'd like to know what's the max pressure they ever boosted the lines to and how often, when and for how long they do it. Seeing as these are transmission lines, not supply lines, that is irrelevant. These pipes do not supply the Reliant Peakers with a direct connection. Nice try though. Keep looking....maybe one of these times you might find something that directly relates to these types of pipes......  Do they pack the pipes though? Do you even know the maximum pressure they have ever used in the pipes for product? How often is peak pressure used and for what duration? In reference to getting around this problem and the monetary penalties for dropped pressure some pipeline operators have even resorted to nearby storage. winsome.cnchost.com/peaker/Electric_Power_Presentation_03-20-02.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 31, 2008 10:43:42 GMT -6
Diesel oil would seep, it's a liquid. Would other chemicals you are concerned about seep also? (I am clueless). I would imagine some would be carried by rain water. It would be nice to have the raw phase2 data to go through to see what was tested for and what was found where. *twiddle thumbs* we are all twiddling our thumbs...... |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 31, 2008 10:45:25 GMT -6
Seeing as these are transmission lines, not supply lines, that is irrelevant. These pipes do not supply the Reliant Peakers with a direct connection. Nice try though. Keep looking....maybe one of these times you might find something that directly relates to these types of pipes...... Do they pack the pipes though? Do you even know the maximum pressure they have ever used in the pipes for product? How often is peak pressure used and for what duration? In reference to getting around this problem and the monetary penalties for dropped pressure some pipeline operators have even resorted to nearby storage. winsome.cnchost.com/peaker/Electric_Power_Presentation_03-20-02.pdfSounds like a good question to ask the pipeline operators. When you get an answer be sure to post it. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 31, 2008 10:52:39 GMT -6
Do they pack the pipes though? Do you even know the maximum pressure they have ever used in the pipes for product? How often is peak pressure used and for what duration? In reference to getting around this problem and the monetary penalties for dropped pressure some pipeline operators have even resorted to nearby storage. winsome.cnchost.com/peaker/Electric_Power_Presentation_03-20-02.pdfSounds like a good question to ask the pipeline operators. When you get an answer be sure to post it. Never fear, the information I've been collecting is definitely being shared. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 31, 2008 11:12:03 GMT -6
Seeing as these are transmission lines, not supply lines, that is irrelevant. These pipes do not supply the Reliant Peakers with a direct connection. Nice try though. Keep looking....maybe one of these times you might find something that directly relates to these types of pipes...... Do they pack the pipes though? Do you even know the maximum pressure they have ever used in the pipes for product? How often is peak pressure used and for what duration? In reference to getting around this problem and the monetary penalties for dropped pressure some pipeline operators have even resorted to nearby storage. winsome.cnchost.com/peaker/Electric_Power_Presentation_03-20-02.pdfI wish to offer a correction. They just might get their supply from the Transmission lines. So Arch, you may wish to ask Reliant also about their Gas supplier. pepei.pennnet.com/display_article/126598/6/ARTCL/none/none/1/Reliant-Brings-Peaking-Power-to-Northern-Illinois/ |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 31, 2008 11:17:05 GMT -6
Yes, I referenced that back when we were trying to identify the number of pipelines, their sizes and owners. |
|
|
|
Post by jftb on Mar 31, 2008 12:48:55 GMT -6
I guess I don't understand why those who are proponents of the Eola location wouldn't want IEPA approval of the site. What's wrong with making sure everything is okay? If it's the loss of one year at MV, isn't that worth doing?
I understand why people have issue with NSFOC, I guess, but I'm not sure why ALL taxpayers in this district don't want to be sure we're spending our money on a safe site. I realize a lot of you "think" it's safe, but what is wrong with being sure?
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 31, 2008 13:04:30 GMT -6
I would love IEPA approval of the MWGen site, but I do not think the AME portion needs it.
So I don't understand why the AME portion would need IEPA Approval.
And I am fine waiting another year if need be, just not sure the kids crammed into the MSs can wait.
|
|
|
|
Post by snerdley on Mar 31, 2008 13:12:30 GMT -6
Can someone please post this email petition that has been referred to? I think those that live in the areas being attacked need to evaluate what is best for our kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Mar 31, 2008 14:11:43 GMT -6
I would love IEPA approval of the MWGen site, but I do not think the AME portion needs it. So I don't understand why the AME portion would need IEPA Approval. And I am fine waiting another year if need be, just not sure the kids crammed into the MSs can wait. That is my problem 42. I just do not see the need to rush. Now, of course I do not have kids in the middle school group so I can admit that bias. (For those that comment is a horror to you can just stop reading here.) However, rushing to get something done that will last many years seems foolish. IMO, this current process gives the appearance of impropriety. We can all joke about the fact the district does not have a great PR machine, but honestly if you were an outsider and read that article in the Sun yesterday what would you think of this district? A school being built on a site that need some sort of remediation, not waiting till the remediation is complete. Not even waiting for an IPEA review. Yes, this means I do not buy into the buy one piece and buy the other argument. If you buy one then you need the other so that suggestion presupposes a positive outcome. We have had enough of that thinking around here already. I know, I know people say it is no big deal, etc. But those people know no more than the people saying it is a big deal. We just all stand here tossing sand back and forth. I actually really find it surprising there is still a group of people out there that does not want to make sure ever t crossed and i is dotted before we move forward. I am really surprised on people's viewpoints after I got done reading all the archives on this site. How many more false starts do we need in this process before everyone gets on that page? It is not about trusting the SB or Admin. It is about following a diligent process. That is the most unemotional and logical response I can provide. |
|
|
|
Post by jftb on Mar 31, 2008 14:39:34 GMT -6
I would love IEPA approval of the MWGen site, but I do not think the AME portion needs it. So I don't understand why the AME portion would need IEPA Approval. And I am fine waiting another year if need be, just not sure the kids crammed into the MSs can wait. Seems to me the kids crammed into the MSs have been that way for a while. While it's not right, it's no reason to put them into an unsafe high school. I am a teacher (currently at home w/kids) who has taught in portables....it's no big deal, really, and yes, they can be rented or bought used (like cars!) from schools who also needed them for a temporary fix. I would much rather see our district consider this option to buy the necessary time to make sure this is done right than to jump on a site just to get open in '09. AME perhaps doesn't need IEPA approval, but if the site as a whole doesn't work, what are we doing? It is my understanding that we need ALL those acres for a complete site. They should ALL be safe. Right? Why the secrecy? Where's the info? WHAT IS THE SB HIDING AND WHY? |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Mar 31, 2008 14:45:21 GMT -6
All this resistance goes away with one simple NFR letter from the IEPA, and it would be worth the wait.
Conversely, moving ahead without the letter only furthers the perception that this SB / Admin is truely a runaway train, and strengthens our resolve to fight it.
I think many reasonable people are becoming more and more disillusioned with this entire process.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 31, 2008 15:10:06 GMT -6
I would love IEPA approval of the MWGen site, but I do not think the AME portion needs it. So I don't understand why the AME portion would need IEPA Approval. And I am fine waiting another year if need be, just not sure the kids crammed into the MSs can wait. It is directly next to the MWGEN site -- why would we not want to have it looked at ? If we were going to build at Hamman - it was not ON the landfill- but wouldn't you have wanted to land checked also ? I know I would have. Regardless of price. Why do we keep trying to shortcut everything ? Much like the Chicken Little avatar - one more year is not going to destroy this district -( yes it's less than optimal - but it's not like we haven't been here before0 - but a bad decision on land we will occupy forver might. |
|
