Excerpts from: Biomass clear of EPA rules for now
as agency defers action for 3 years for analysis
By Tom Callis
as agency defers action for 3 years for analysis
By Tom Callis
Wood-burning facilities will not be regulated under the Environmental Protection Agency's new greenhouse gas regulations that went into effect earlier this month, the federal agency announced last week.
The move came after proponents of biomass energy, including Washington state officials and some members of Congress, protested the inclusion of biomass projects under the new regulations.
They said that wood-burning facilities should not be treated the same as those that burn fossil fuels because by burning wood waste they are "carbon-neutral" and add no additional carbon to the atmosphere.
The EPA move means the North Olympic Peninsula's two biomass energy projects at the Nippon Paper Industries USA's Port Angeles mill and Port Townsend Paper Corp. are off the list of facilities that must comply with the new regulations -- at least for the next three years.
Both burn wood waste now and expect to have upgraded facilities online sometime this year. Nippon plans a new boiler, while the Port Townsend mill intends to install a new steam generator.
Nippon administrators said they expected their $71 million biomass energy project would comply.
Still, said Harold Norlund, mill manager, the decision is good news...
The state Department of Ecology granted the Port Townsend mill Oct. 25 a "notice of construction" permit for its $55 million project, which would generate up to 24 megawatts of electrical power.
The EPA's new greenhouse gases rules are intended to improve fuel efficiency among large emitters of Earth-warming gases and are aimed at facilities that emit more than 100,000 tons of greenhouse gases per year.
Link to complete article:
http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20110117/news/301179997/biomass-clear-of-epa-rules-for-now-as-agency-defers-action-for-3
If the EPA really thinks its job is to protect us and the planet, their decision would have included a moratorium on new construction of wood burning incinerators while it was studying the data. Q.E.D., the EPA does not consider our protection as its real function.
ReplyDeleteBelow is a link to a previous posting of mine about what I think the EPA's (& ORCAA's) job REALLY is.
http://masoncountyprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/12/bugs-in-big-bucks-political-pomade.html
It doesn't make me happy to say I told you so.
You are right, John; if their function was to protect people, a moratorium while they study the issue makes one heck of a lot more sense.
ReplyDeleteAny chance of stopping the predatory biomass industry has always been with the people and local officials. When people fail to demand the right to be heard and officials are willing to throw their contituents under the bus this is what happens.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone who votes for these bills, or places them before Congress, live near a Biomass Incinertor? I would think not. There would be no need for more study if the EPA would look at the information out there right now. It is a no brainer that the continued buildling of these polluting plants should also be put on hold.
ReplyDeleteA very special "thank you" to Washington's very own(ed) Sen. Patty Murray for being one of 41 $enators to sign a letter requesting the EPA to ease up on the new regulations for corporations.
ReplyDeleteBioma$$ for the politicians equals $$$ in their campaign coffers. Patty Murray sold out during the last campaign; what can we infer from that?
ReplyDeleteone of the sad things about being a trained scientist, specializing in among other things, environmental health and biochemical toxicology is the continuing flood of rhetoric and emotion on all sides of this issue. Each side likes to cite studies it thinks best presents its case, giving little credence to the other. Biomass and global warming Co2 issues are one thing. Comparative risks from particulates and others are quite another.
ReplyDeleteIf one looks at the compendium of data regarding the latter, you will see that there is no clear cut culprit. The problem is an amalgam of sources and exposures. Who here has read the bulk of the data on this issue. By bulk, I mean most of it, not just that which supports your position?
I ask this because that is a fundamental problem with the movement..too many opinions are based on second hand idea.. this makes our arguments weak when used within and outside the system. We can speak passionately.. but not accurately. In the technical regulatory review world, it is emotionless and generally pretty objective. Now that ought to stir up some emotion.. but come on think about it, when we can truly make detailed technical arguments we can win. How often do we though?
In this climate of greed and corruption, there seems to be little use for detailed technical arguments on the local level. These arguments are falling on deaf ears.
ReplyDelete