STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
_____________________________________ Case Type: Civil - Other
Court File:
62-C3-99-010952
Power Line Task Force, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
AFFIDAVIT OF
v. ROGER R. CONANT
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
ss.
COUNTY OF RICE )
Roger
Conant, after being duly sworn on oath, states and deposes as follows:
- I am
the spokesperson for the Power Line Task Force, Inc., which consists of
people who live near or who will be impacted by the proposed line. Our role is to develop information
pertinent to the impact of the present and the proposed line on us and our
neighbors.
- I was
present on October 18, 2000, when Commonwealth Associates provided
information regarding the proposed NSP powerline and 3 systems
alternatives to the Steering Committee that had not previously been
disclosed despite repeated and diligent questioning. I was also present when Commonwealth
Associates provided proof that the lines would be operated at much higher
power flows than NSP claims.
- I
attended a public meeting of the Steering Committee, which was formed
after NSP’s application for a Conditional Use Permit in Mendota Heights
was turned down. The Steering
Committee consists of the three mayors of the affected towns of South St.
Paul, Sunfish Lake, and Mendota Heights, and was established by an
identical resolution that was passed in each of the three
communities. The mayors got
together to develop a record, and NSP agreed to pay the expenses,
including that of consultants. The
Steering Committee selected from four consultants, and chose Commonwealth
Associates, in part because it was the cheapest. Commonwealth has a design contract in connection with the
construction of the line in question, has characterized itself as
reporting to NSP, and until recently, believed NSP to be part of the
Steering Committee. Commonwealth
has every reason to favor NSP in its analyses.
- On
September 18, 2000, I went to a Steering Committee meeting. Commonwealth had only considered the
alternative proposed by NSP, along Hwy. 110, which is not a politically feasible route due to the many homes
along the line that would be affected.
I raised the issue of looking at other system alternatives,
pointing to the fact that MAPP had identified the North/South route to
High Bridge, and asked that they at least look at the MAPP
alternative. Commonwealth was
reluctant, they said it would be expensive to look at the other alternatives,
it was not in their budget, and they felt it was not in their
mandate. At that point, the mayors
vehemently disagreed, and Sunfish Lake Mayor Frank Tiffany took out the
proposal and verified that system alternatives were indeed included for
review. When confronted with the
proposal wording, Commonwealth agreed to go back and look at other systems
possibilities
- Commonwealth
had done a survey of the homes near the line through looking at aerial holographs,
and the mayors felt that the information was not sufficient. Commonwealth set “50 feet” as the
benchmark, and reported so many within 50 feet and so many beyond 50
feet. I pointed out the EMF is 4
times greater at 25 feet than at 50 feet, and hat there were many houses
within that 20-25 feet range.
Commonwealth reluctantly greed to do an on site survey of those
houses, at increments 25 and 50 feet.
Newly
Discovered Information - 3 systems alternatives, increased powerflows and high EMF levels remain essentially
unchanged
- Then
on October 18, 2000, I attended another meeting of the Steering
Committee. At this meeting, two
Commonwealth representatives were present. Four NSP representatives, including Heidi Benedict, Patrick
Cline, and two engineers.
Commonwealth presented its findings regarding system alternatives,
and he identified that there were three potential alternatives. These systems alternatives had not been
revealed prior to this time.
- One
alternative entailed rebuilding the High Bridge line to Rogers Lake, which
avoids homes and raises none of the issues that we’ve been raising, either
aesthetically, environmentally, or EMF.
This is similar to the alternative developed by MAPP power
pool. Two other alternatives were
developed, which entailed stringing lines located south of the SE Metro
line. These alternatives also
avoided the So. St. Paul and Sunfish Lake areas.
- At the
EQB meeting, Commissioner of Commerce Steve Minn asked Jim Alders whether
here were alternatives, and Jim Alders said that there were no
economically feasible lternatives.
He said that alternative would be economically unfeasible.
- Together
with these One Line Diagrams of the system alternatives, Commonwealth
presented charts and graphs that verified the electric and magnetic fields
and noise levels that had been provided by NSP to the EQB.
- Another
important document that was disclosed was Table 7-1, which shows
residences within 50 feet of Centerline.
The line itself is 20 feet wide, and clearances are calculated from
the nearest conductor. This chart
shows that there are houses 14, 15, and 16 feet from the center line, and
there are 45 houses within 50 feet, and within 35 feet of the conductor
itself, assuming the conductor is 10 feet away from the center line. This confirmed all of our concerns
about the extreme nature of the placement of the powerline in relation to
the homes. The closeness of the
line to the homes has not been a point of contention, but this shows just
how close the line really is. It
appears possible that several homes encroach on the right of way, and it
is demonstrated that four do encroach on the right of way.
- What
is the most important thing is that NSP absolutely said at the EQB meeting
was that there were no feasible alternatives to the proposed line, and
that statement was determinative of the EIS need determination. The main purpose of an EIS is to
investigate alternatives to a proposed project. If NSP had truthfully testified there were potential
alternatives, the EQB would have been compelled order an EIS to look at those
alternatives. The EQB definitely
was influenced by what we now know to be an incorrect statement by Mr.
Alders that there were no practical alternatives.
- Because
the SE Metro line is owned and managed by NSP, and because NSP’s Senior Transmission
Engineer, Walt Grivna, actively participated in the development of the MAPP
plans, NSP knew or should have known of the alternatives and should have disclosed
these alternatives for consideration of the EQB. Instead, it proffered an alternative that it knew to be
politically unacceptable. Had NSP
acted appropriately, the resulting EQB decision would have been different
and an EIS would have been ordered to review
the alternatives. But for NSP’s
withholding of information, the EIS would have been ordered.
- As
part of its presentation, Commonwealth noted that the proposed new line is
intended to meet new demand created by industrial development in the Lone
Oaks area and potential new industrial development adjacent to the Mall of
America in Bloomington. In its
presentation, Commonwealth did not suggest that the new line would serve
the residents of homes adjacent to the line nor the communities in which
they reside. Information on the
service area of the line was not provided by NSP to the EQB. Rather, NSP maintained that the line
was needed to serve the needs of the communities through which it passes,
as stated in the opening line of the EAW.
The Commonwealth examination of systems alternatives was confined to
the area immediately adjacent to the proposed new line. Since the line is intended to serve
industry in distant communities, there are likely to be many additional
possible alternatives in areas adjacent to the industrial areas in Lone
Oaks and Bloomington.
- A
third important point has been demonstrated by the documents revealed on
October 18, 2000, specifically Table 3-1.
NSP has claimed that the EMF levels emanating from the line will
decrease after the upgrade due to phase cancellation. The documents that were provided by
Commonwealth show that the power levels will be much higher than those
shown in the EAW. We believe that
the data released October 18, demonstrates that the EMF will in fact be
much higher than that presented by NSP because the capacity is much higher
than was represented and the power flows will be running much higher. This has been verified by our engineer,
David A. Blecker, P.E.
Solid
Research Released Regarding EMF
- NSP
consistently maintains that it is an authority on the scientific work
regarding EMF. In its publication,
Electric and Magnetic Fields, Answers to Frequently-asked Questions, NSP
states that it “is sensitive to our customers’ concerns about EMF.” The utility touts that we “continue to
actively monitor research through our participation in the Electric Power
Institute (EPRI).” It continues,
“NSP research reviews research on the issue and incorporates the
conclusions in its planning and operation of transmission and distribution
lines.” NSP’s EMF Issues Manager,
Heidi Benedict, is an EMF specialist at NSP, and James Alders claims to
have headed the EMF department for many years.
- NSP
maintains that there is no solid evidence that EMF constitutes a health
danger. In the publication cited
above. NSP states, “The simple
fact is after more than 30 years of intensive research on power lines and
EMF, there is no evidence of health effects from power lines or exposure
to EMF, even at high levels.” Jim
Alders made an essentially identical assertion when testifying before the
EQB.
a.
Four very important studies have just been released regarding
EMF. A major study entitled “A pooled
analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukemia,” has just been published in
the British Journal of Cancer, September 2000, p. 692-698. It pooled data drawn from 9 recent studies. While noting that only 0.8% of the
population receives exposure higher than 4 mG, it demonstrated a clear and
consistent pattern of significant risks for average exposures above that level. All of the homes adjacent to the powerline
experience EMF levels greater than the 4 mG level, and therefore, this study
suggests those who live in those homes have a heightened risk of contracting
leukemia. See attached Exhibit H. The importance of this study is recognized
in the prestigious publication Microwave Age, and in the Journal of the
Bioelectromagnetics Society.
b.
A study produced by Bristol University and published in the
International Journal of Radiation, Vo. 75, No. 12, p. 1505-1521, addressed the
dangers of electric fields, as opposed to magnetic fields. It concludes that individuals living within
1,000 feet of a powerline have a heightened risk of cancer. This research has been validated by soon to be published
epidemiological studies conducted at the same university.
c.
Two studies have been published in the Journal of
Environmental Perspectives, which is jointly produced by the U.S. Department of
Health and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. One study noted that cells remain in an
undifferentiated, precancerous state when under the influence of EMF of the
type and strength experience by those who live near the Southeast Metro line
(Vol. 108, No. 10, October, 2000). A
second study appeared in the August edition of the same journal (Vol. 108, No.
8), which concludes that EMF of the type and intensity
experienced by those who live near the SE Metro line can cause heart rate
variability of the type that ordinarily leads to heart attacks. See attached Exhibit D.
19.
A scientist with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
is co-author of the latter study. As
noted above, NSP/Xcel claims its membership in the EPRI gives it special
insight into EMF research. A NSP/Xcel
staff member heads the EPRI research Committee, and Heidi Benedict sits on its
committee that oversees EMF research.
Accordingly, NSP/Xcel knew or should have known of this ongoing research
at the same time it was claiming before the EQB that there were no important
scientific research studies that validated concerns regarding EMF.
Further your affiant sayeth not.
____________________________
Roger
R. Conant
Signed and sworn to before me this
____ day of ___________, 2000.
___________________________
Notary Public