Public Health & Recreation

Ocean State Power’s Oil Burning Boosts R.I.’s Chemical Emissions

Rhode Island was the only state in southern New England to see its emissions increase in 2015. Pollution went up primarily because the Ocean State Power facility in Burrilliville used oil fuel that year, according to state and federal records.

The fossil-fuel power plant mainly burns natural gas, but for a portion of 2015 the 560-megawatt power plant switched to oil. As soon as an energy facility burns oil, it must report all of its emissions for the year. Thus, ammonia, a main component in pollution-reduction systems, shot to the top of the list of pollutants for the year.

However, most of Rhode Island’s ammonia emissions go unreported because power plants such as the 450-megawatt Manchester Street Power Station in Providence and the 583-megawatt State Energy Center in Johnston only burned natural gas. Those facilities also use ammonia in their air-pollution cleaning systems, but since they didn’t burn oil in 2015 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) didn’t require them to report ammonia emissions.

Rhode Island’s No. 2 chemical emitter was Newport Biodiesel Inc., according to the EPA’s most recent Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). The facility didn’t comply with air-pollution standards for its use of methanol. The company paid $396,000 in fines and in 2016 installed a new pollution control system to meet methanol emission standards.

Rounding out Rhode Island’s top 10 chemical emitters in 2015 were: Chemart in Lincoln, Providence Metallizing Co. Inc. in Pawtucket, Senesco Main Yard in North Kingstown, General Cable Industries LLC in Lincoln, ExxonMobil in East Providence, Dewal Industries in Narragansett, New England Union Co. Inc. in West Warwick, and Toray Plastics in North Kingstown.

During 2015, the latest year for which data are available, about 15 million pounds of chemicals were released in the six New England states, a reduction of about 1.3 million pounds — decreased by 8.3 percent — from 2014. During this period, total air emissions in New England were reduced by 9.4 percent, according to the TRI.

In Rhode Island, 88 facilities reported 460,542 pounds of chemicals released — an increase of 101,908 pounds, or 28 percent. The top 10 chemicals released by Rhode Island into the environment in 2015 were: ammonia, methanol, nitrate compounds, copper compounds, toluene, xylene, zinc compounds, n-butyl alcohol, antimony compounds and copper.

The EPA annually makes TRI data publicly available. The information is reported by industries throughout the United States regarding chemical releases to air, water and land by power plants, manufacturers and other facilities that employ 10 or more workers and which exceed thresholds for chemicals. Reporting includes information on chemicals released at a company’s facility and those transported to disposal facilities off-site. TRI data don’t reflect the relative toxicity of the chemicals emitted or potential exposure to people living in a community with reported releases.

Reporting under TRI also doesn’t indicate illegal discharges of pollutants.

MASSACHUSETTS
In Massachusetts, 404 facilities reported about 3.4 million pounds of chemicals released — a decrease of 180,144 pounds from 2014, or 5 percent.

The 10 facilities that reported the largest quantity environmental releases in 2015 were: Solutia Inc., Springfield; Crown Beverage Packaging, Lawrence; Ineos Melamines, Springfield; Ideal Tape Co., Lowell; Supercon Inc., Shewsbury; Mystic Station, Charlestown; Acushnet Co. Ball Plant III, New Bedford; Duncan Group, Everett; Wollaston Alloys, Braintree; and GVS NA, Westborough.

The top 10 chemicals released into the environment were: zinc compounds, toluene, nitrate compounds, certain glycol ethers, n-butyl alcohol, ammonia, lead, chromium, hydrochloric acid, and n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone.

CONNECTICUT
In Connecticut, 272 facilities reported about 1.5 million pounds of chemicals released — a decrease of 411,747 pounds, or 21.4 percent.

The 10 facilities that reported the largest quantity of environmental releases in 2015 were: Unimetal Surface Finishing LLC, Thomaston; Clean Harbors of Connecticut Inc., Bristol; Pratt & Whitney, East Hartford; Connecticut Galvanizing Corp., Glastonbury; GBC Metals LLC Somers Thin Strip, Waterbury; Allnex USA Inc., Wallingford; General Cable Industries, Willimantic; Stanley Works Hand Tools, New Britain; Ahlstrom Nonwovens LLC, Windsor Locks; and Unimetal Surface Finishing LLC, Naugatuck.

The top 10 chemicals released into the environment were: zinc compounds, nitrate compounds, dichloromethane, ammonia, copper compounds, ethylene glycol, methanol, certain glycol ethers, toluene, and nickel.

Join the Discussion

View Comments

Recent Comments

  1. Now—question relevant to the Invenergy "Clear River Energy Center" siting process—how much oil was burned, and how many tanker truckloads does that figure represent?

    A perusal of the public record left by the Ocean State Power siting process, an Environmental Impact Statement concluded by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1988, reveals that initially, Ocean State proposed trucking its oil by tanker to the site on Sherman Farm Road on the Uxbridge, Ma line. However, commentary came back from various agencies party to the EIS, panning that idea for its danger. Sherman Farm Rd. is a winding, shoulder less, narrow country road. Ocean State was compelled to build an oil pipeline. Invenergy has faced no such criticism in the infamous Energy Facilities Siting Board "process" touted by Gov. Raimondo.

    Invenergy from the beginning has planned transport its winter oil by tanker truck over the narrow, winding roads of Chepatchet and Pascoag villages. And now, as suddenly revealed in the Woonsocket and Johnston water negotiations, Invenergy will rely on tanker-truck transport for its cooling water, too.

    Cooling water use will peak when the plant fires on oil in the middle of winter. So, in addition to tanker truck deliveries of ammonia, tanker trucks for the oil and the water together will traversing those narrow Chepachet and Pascoag streets, making life dangerous and permanently reducing property values.

    Knowing these simple facts, is it any wonder that the people of Glocester and Burrillville are up in arms about this?

    That RI DOT, under the leadership of Director, Peter Alviti Jr., (former New England Laborer’s Union official working under Armand Sabitoni, Michael Sabitioni’s cousin,) has stated officially to the Energy Facilities Planning Board that they render "No opinion" on the power plant’s impact on the road system on grounds of "lack of information," is the height of irresponsibility and smells of conflict of interest.

    Is anyone in the media today willing to tackle that one?

    (And where is Save the Bay on this? Shouldn’t they be counting the rivers and brooks and swamps and storm drains along the way and be, at last, REALLY joining the opposition against the power plant? With this new water transport plant, their continued inaction on the CREC is intolerable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Your support keeps our reporters on the environmental beat.

Reader support is at the core of our nonprofit news model. Together, we can keep the environment in the headlines.

cookie

We use cookies to improve your experience and deliver personalized content. View Cookie Settings