Excerpt from:
Three groups appeal Longview Fibre's biomass permit
By Andre Stepankowsky
Saying that Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging deliberately and grossly underestimated air pollution that would be emitted by its new wood waste power plant, three environmental groups have appealed the state Department of Ecology’s decision to grant a permit for the project. Three groups appeal Longview Fibre's biomass permit
By Andre Stepankowsky
"Fibre is trying to evade expensive pollution controls and rigorous government review by deliberately understating the amount of toxic and deadly pollution that its project would emit," the Seattle-based No Biomass Burn group said in announcing the appeal.
The group contends that Longview Fibre and its consultant skewed their air pollution analysis to avoid the need to install more advanced pollution-control equipment. The suit is seeking a full environmental impact study of the project and a review under the state’s prevention of significant air quality deterioration rules, steps Ecology did not require of Fibre when it issued the company a permit June 2.
"The Fibre proposal so badly uses the emissions data, gaming the system to make emissions increases look like decreases," said Duff Badgley, president of No Biomass Burn, whose self-stated mission is "to expose and confront the myth of sustainable biomass energy."
Fibre declined comment directly on the appeal.
In a prepared statement issued Thursday, the company said, "for more than a year Longview (Fibre) has made considerable efforts to demonstrate compliance with the Washington state Department of Ecology’s regulations.
"Ecology comprehensively reviewed our submission. This 18-month review included data analysis, modeling and extended dialogue on all parameters of the operation. The analysis was fully accurate and complete. We support the tremendous effort Ecology put into issuing this permit."
A hearing has not been scheduled on the appeal, but one is not likely until early next year because of a backlog of cases, a spokeswoman for the State Pollution Control Hearings Board said Thursday. The World Temperate Rainforest Network and Olympic Environmental Council are joining No Biomass Burn in the appeal.
Construction of the 54-megawatt biomass energy expansion project would allow the company to shut down older, less efficient wood-waste boilers, according to the company, which is not revealing the cost of the plant.
The stakes are high. The environmental community sees the Fibre project as a test case for whether wood waste boilers — which have been used for decades under the name of "hog fuel boilers" — should be considered "green" energy. In the ecologists’ view, there’s nothing clean or particularly green about the plants.
For Fibre, however, the project is worth about $30 million in federal subsidies from federal stimulus money set aside for renewable energy projects. In addition, revenues from power sales are potentially large. No Biomass Burn estimates that Fibre could make $500 million over 20 years, a figure Badgley said the group derives from a $300 million offer that Mason County PUD made to Simpson for a 31-megawatt biomass plant that had been proposed to be built at Shelton.
Longview Fibre’s project is the largest biomass energy project proposed statewide, generating enough power for 2,400 homes.
The company began pouring concrete for the foundation on the project last month, barely beating a July 1 deadline to start construction, Missing the deadline would have resulted in a longer and costlier regulatory path. Fibre spokeswoman Sarah Taydas said construction will continue while the appeal is pending.
Filed Tuesday, the appeal is highly complex. One of the key issues, however, is the method Fibre and its engineer Trinity Consultants, used to calculate emissions. Such calculations are based on "emission factors," which are models of how much pollution is produced and controlled by various types of equipment. Essentially, No Biomass Burn contends that Longview Fibre and Trinity used the most forgiving models, leading them to drastically underestimate plant emissions.
Badgley sharply criticized the Ecology department, saying the agency "protects the polluters. It goes out of its way to accommodate the polluter. We have thousands of emails that show how they go through extraordinary lengths to make sure the applicant gets what it wants."
Link to complete article:
http://tdn.com/news/local/article_fa855018-a904-11e0-a1ba-001cc4c03286.html
Link to previous related 8/24/10 post:
"Press Release From NoBiomassBurn.Org"
http://masoncountyprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/08/press-release-from-nobiomassburnorg.html
Link to PUD 3/Simpson Document (also in Blog Reference Documents):
2010-03-10 PUD3 Offer to Simpson Document
NO BIOMASS BURN
CONTACT: Duff Badgley
www.nobiomassburn.org
duff@nobiomassburn.org
Mason County Air-Breathers salute No Biomass Burn, the World Temperate Rain Forest Network, Olympic Environmental Council and everyone involved in resisting the operation of this plant.
ReplyDelete$30 million in federal subsidies earmarked for "green" and "renewable" technology, if used to help build and operate a plant based on caveman technology (the burning of wood for energy), is obscene.
All across the country air-breathers are fighting tooth and nail to see that these federal dollars are not handed out to polluters. At the same time, most of our elected officials and our regulatory agencies are helping the polluters as much as they can. These regulatory agencies are subject to political influence. The affect of this political influence can be seen clearly in the Mason County citizens dealings with ORCAA over Adage, and now in our dealings with Ecology in connection with Simpson and Olympic Panel Company.
Thank you for taking the lead and fighting this good fight.
Why on earth would Mason County PUD
ReplyDeleteoffer thirty million to Simpson, which
will pollute, when the non-polluting
windmills are shut down because of
too much electricity being available
and Washington has non-polluting
water to be used for making
electricity? Plenty of water may be
a weather trend for the forseeable
future.
If they plan to sell to California,
they must be going to make
a bundle to be able to give Simpson
that amount, and they will still sell
for a tidy profit. Will our
electricity rate go down? So much for a "public" utility. It looks like a
business for profit move at the expense
of our health.
It's as much about "free" money as anything in all of these instances. It's the millions of federal subsidy dollars and the mistaken listing of biomass incineration as green and/or renewable that drives these really bad projects. If not for that terrible decision to list anything that is burned as green, these businesses would be looking at wind and solar and anything else they could to qualify for "free" money. Unfortunately it is the stimulus dollars that drives these projects.
ReplyDeleteIt was actually $300 million according to the article; $30 or $300, this is the first time I have heard that and would want to fact check it.
ReplyDeleteLINKS to previously related 8/24/10 blog post AND PUD3/Simpson Document are NOW included in this current post (ABOVE). The PUD3/Simpson Document is also in Blog Reference Documents.
ReplyDeleteYou little fact-checker you! Thanks.
ReplyDelete