Hi again Pam, I also noticed you left off one of the documents referenced in my first email that you posted today. You only posted 2 of the 3 attachments. You might also add that missing document for your readers, as it contains valuable, credible information about the severe, adverse health and economic impacts and costs associated with operating a highly polluting coal plant around a large number of people in an urban area such as we have with the Drake coal plant in Co Springs. As referenced in the letter that you did post, Drake emits pollution to the level of 3,415 tons of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx or NO2), 4,600 tons of Sulfur Dioxide (SOx or SO2), and 11 pounds of Mercury (Hg) per year. For context, one teaspoon of mercury in a lake is more than enough to poison the fish above a level that is too contaminated for human consumption.
Hi Pam, unfortunately your post misses the important substance in my email exchanges with Pico today of which you were copied that Pico's personal "tally" of 3 to 1 in favor of keeping Drake open longer is inaccurate. Pico improperly combines public comments from people wanting post-fire rate increases to cease, with those folks who submitted comments about longer term planning for Drake, which CSU itself reported to the Council yesterday were more than 2 to 1 in favor of a short term decommissioning. I suggest you post the entire exchange between Pico and myself so that your readers can understand the full context of the discussion. Thank you. Leslie Weise
All content © Copyright 2015, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation