KEEP DS FOR ADAGE!

Submitted to Shelton Blog by Duff Badgley

New ADAGE Documents Fail To Rebut DS Finding

From: duff@nobiomassburn.org
To: barbara@co.mason.wa.us
Subject: New Adage documents fail to rebut DS finding
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:10:39 -0800

November 19, 2010

Barbara A. Adkins, AICP
Mason County Department of Community Development
411 N 5th Street
Shelton, WA 98584

Re: Keep DS for Adage

Dear Ms. Adkins,
　
No new material evidence has been presented by Adage that warrants Mason County changing its finding of Determination of Significance (DS) for the proposed Adage biomass project.

There is no information in any of these following documents that warrants changing the DS finding:

• The recently submitted Robinson Noble “Statement of Opinion Regarding Effectiveness” (RN);
• The November 12, 2010 revised SEPA checklist (SEPA CL) submitted by Adage Mason, LLC;
• The Stoel Rives, LLP Legal Memorandum (LM) attached to the SEPA CL.
  

Please consider the following analysis of these three documents and then return your DS finding for Adage that will require a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

1. RN does not consider fire or explosion which could breach proposed controls and release large amounts of petroleum and/or ammonia into the till, contaminating the aquifer.
2. LM incorrectly states Adage fuel is not a waste but a commodity with a value.
Slash is slash. Currently it is either left on the ground to rot or is burned. It is waste to humans. You makes this case very well in your Oct. 10, 2010 letter finding for DS.
3. LM tries to gut SEPA by saying the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) will take care of Adage’s application review and recommends Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS). ORCAA reviews on air quality impacts. SEPA is a broad law that covers all environmental impacts. SEPA was specifically written so the lead SEPA agency’s (Mason County here) SEPA recommendation could anticipate and inform all subsequent agencies weighing projects. Under SEPA, Mason County must anticipate and inform ORCAA--not vice versa.
4. A finding for MDNS would not require an EIS. With an MDNS, Adage would avoid the rigorous environmental review you state in your 10/10/10 letter this project requires. This project still needs this rigorous environmental review. Nothing in the LM, the SEPA CL, nor the RN has shown a need to change this requirement for a full environmental review.
5. A finding for MDNS would defeat the purpose of SEPA. An MDNS would curtail and severely restrict environmental review of the Adage biomass project. SEPA requires a broad-based environmental review only available under a finding for DS triggering an EIS.
6. MDNS is tantamount to an approval by Mason County which would be later cited by ORCAA in its Notice of Construction (NOC) air permit review.
7. LM uses false and circular reasoning to try to diminish SEPA and persuade Mason County to abandon SEPA's central purpose. LM wants Mason County now to consult with ORCAA regarding its SEPA review. Allowing Mason County’s SEPA recommendation to be influenced now by a subsequent permit reviewing agency (ORCAA) is exactly the reverse procedure SEPA mandates.
8. LM incorrectly states the Washington Department of Ecology (ECY) uses a definition of solid waste that exonerates Adage from its definition. I have ECY emails from 2009-2010 from my June 15, 2010 Public Records Request that show ECY has been undecided if Adage was a solid waste burner. There is internal debate at ECY, with some high-ranking staffers arguing the proposed Adage biomass project qualifies as a solid waste burner.
9. Please let me know if you would like copies of these ECY emails.
10. LM uses circular reasoning to give slash economic value. The only economic value comes from Adage and other incinerators buying it. Under this crooked logic, LM would have us believe municipal solid waste (garbage) fed into a waste incinerator has economic value because it has been purchased--and therefore is not waste!!
11. The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) classifies slash as waste only given value by incinerator developers like Adage purchasing and burning it.
In DNR’s September, 2010 publication, “Forest Biomass: Hot Topics and Emerging Issues”, DNR states:”…the use of forest biomass as an energy feedstock is helping to create a market for a product previously seen as ‘waste’ ”. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/em_biomass_hot_topics_fact_sheet.pdf
12. LM states that the purpose of the Adage biomass project is not to convert solid waste to energy--but that is precisely the main function of the plant. Perhaps it is not the publicly stated purpose, but the main function is converting solid waste (slash with no economic value if not fed to incinerators) to electricity.
13. Adage fails ORCAA's test copied as “Table 1” into the LM for determining solid waste or not--meaning, if slash is slash is waste to be burned or left to rot, then, by ORCAA's rules, Adage would burn solid waste.
14. ORCAA Table 1 asks: “Is the Material a Traditional Fuel?” Answer is “No” since only by Adage purchasing and burning the forest slash does it have a function as fuel. Otherwise, the slash is burned in open air fires intended to dispose of it as unusable waste, or the slash is left to rot--abandoned--on the forest floor.
15. ORCAA Table 1 asks: “Has the Material been Discarded in the First Instance (I.e., disposed, abandoned, thrown away)?” Answer is “Yes”. The forest slash has been abandoned to rot or to be burned as waste. Since answer is “yes”, ORCAA classifies this “secondary material (the slash) as waste”.
16. ORCAA Table 1 asks: “Does the Material Satisfy the Legitimacy Criteria below?” One of the four Legitimacy Criteria is “Does the material contain contaminants at levels comparable to or lower than traditional fuels which the unit is designed to burn?” Answer is “No” since studies accepted by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) document that burning biomass releases more carbon dioxide, more nitrogen oxides, and more particulate matter than burning fossil fuels releases, per unit of energy produced. ORCAA Table 1 then states: “If the answer to one of the legitimacy criteria is no, the secondary material is a waste (sham recycled and therefore considered to be “disposed’ ” (bold by ORCAA).
17. The proposed Adage biomass project would burn waste material as defined by ORCAA under three different criteria.
18. The proposed Adage biomass project would be a “sham recycled” burner, per ORCAA.
19. LM states without substantiation that forest wood fuel is abundant. No one can determine if this statement is true. WA DNR will not have the results of its statewide biomass inventory until July, 2011 at earliest.
20. SEPA requires consideration of the fuel supply impacts of 10 other proposed and existing biomass incinerators on the Olympic Peninsula that would, collectively, burn 2,750,000 tons of forest wood each year.
21. SEPA requires consideration of the impacts on forests of removing large amounts of woody material from these forests. It would be a violation of SEPA to fail to do so.
22. Your 10/10/10 letter finding for DS/EIS is excellent and was prepared with sound legal advice from Mason County staff attorneys. LM parries with competing interpretations of Mason County Code chapters and RCWs regarding definitions of solid waste burners. You received good legal advice in preparing your DS finding. Nothing material has changed. Keep with your DS finding.
23. SEPA was designed to prevail over and guide regional and local environmental laws and regulations. Please let SEPA do its job.　
    

Thank you.

Duff Badgley
No Biomass Burn
Seattle, WA, 98119
duff@nobiomassburn.org