By Heather Michon
Correspondent
A new health impact study examining the proposed expansion of the Expedition Generation natural gas plant in Fluvanna County estimates increased levels of fine particulate air pollution and associated health risks as county officials continue reviewing permit requests tied to the project.
The analysis was presented on Thursday, Jan. 7, during a public webinar hosted by Fluvanna Horizons Alliance, a local interest group that opposes plans to build a second natural gas plant at the existing Tenaska site. The group has been actively organizing residents and advocating against the expansion.
The study was presented by Michael Cork, a doctoral student at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health who holds a master’s degree in public health. Cork said the analysis was conducted in collaboration with colleagues at the school at the request of the Southern Environmental Law Center (SCLC).
The study focuses on projected emissions from the proposed second plant, a 1,540-megawatt combined-cycle natural gas facility to be built adjacent to the existing plant.
Using publicly available Environmental Protection Agency data and computer-based air dispersion modeling, Cork estimated how emissions from a comparable modern gas plant could affect levels of fine particulate matter, known as PM 2.5, across Fluvanna County and surrounding regions.
PM 2.5 consists of microscopic particles small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream and has been linked in peer-reviewed research to respiratory and cardiovascular disease.
According to the analysis, the proposed plant would emit an estimated 153 tons of PM 2.5 annually, resulting in modeled increases in particulate concentrations, with the highest impacts occurring closest to the site and extending into neighboring counties.
To estimate potential health outcomes, the study used an EPA health impact screening tool that translates modeled pollution increases into projected effects such as additional emergency room visits, asthma cases, and premature deaths, along with associated economic costs related to health care impacts. Cork emphasized that the findings are based on statistical projections rather than direct measurements.
The study outlines several limitations. It evaluates PM 2.5 exposure only and does not assess other potential impacts such as noise, land-use changes, construction-related effects, or greenhouse gas emissions. It also models emissions from the proposed plant alone and does not include pollution from the existing facility.
Tenaska pushed back on the study and its conclusions, criticizing what it described as “recent inaccurate reports from project opponents claiming to detail health impacts associated with natural gas-fueled power generation in Fluvanna County.”
In a statement, the company said Virginia’s regulatory and permitting process is designed to protect both the environment and public health, adding that the proposed plant would be required to meet all state and federal air quality standards.
Health impact studies are not explicitly required as part of the county’s land-use review process. However, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors are likely to consider potential health impacts as they move toward decisions on local permits for the Expedition Generation plant.
Those decisions have been delayed until at least late February after Tenaska requested additional time to work with county staff on proposed permit conditions.
