We've also had several requests to not allow attacks against the moderators and hosts of this forum. I'm uncomfortable moderating those out, but have an alternative proposal. Would it work for those comments to be posted in the forum called The Pub... so that people who want to can read them... and so that people who don't want to read them don't have to?
We had too many complaints about the tone so as we prepare to open up discussions again, we moved the forum to a moderated format. That means Catherine Miller and I will need to see if a post meets the moderation agreements before it gets posted on the site. I'm hoping that if we establish moderation agreements that make sense to most people that people can monitor themselves and we will be able to lift the moderated format. Here are a few agreements some forums have about their dialog. 1) Stick to the topic of the forum. 2) No personal attacks. 3) Share air time - Don't fill up the space with your comments. Leave room for others. 4) No selling products for a for-profit business. How do those sound to you? Can you think of others you'd like to see? The final version of the Pioneer Valley Clean Energy Plan is nearly finished. We'll post it here. We need to move our communities off our dependence on foreign oil, into a way of life that uses far less energy overall, and onto renewables for the energy we do. This forum is a place where we can work together do to that, using the plan as a launching pad for our work. The siting of biomass and wind projects has been very contentious in our region. This forum will also have a place where we can look at the advantages and disadvantages of specific projects. If you're interested in talking about the third party review of the Russel Biomass plant, please join the "Biomass and the Russell Biomass Plant" group. Once we have our moderation agreements in place, we will begin that discussion. e-democracy.org is a non-profit organization in Minneapolis that has provided this online resource to us for free. They work with groups around the world to support direct citizen democracy. We are grateful for all they have done for us. If you can make a donation to them in appreciation of that resource, we'd be grateful. We had some technical difficulty transitioning these groups over to a moderated setting, but I think it's working now. If you have a message to post that isn't getting through, please send it to me directly at <email obscured>. I'll see that it gets up. I'm eager to move off of this moderated format as soon as we have agreements to set and keep a tone that's comfortable for the majority, where people don't feel like they have to put on armor to step into the ring. We have difficult things to talk about. If we figure out what agreements we need with each other so that people in the middle of an issue feel comfortable participating (not just the extremes), where we're comfortable talking about why we feel strongly about the topics on the table, we'll be creating the kind of community we want to live in. The kind of community we want to leave for our children. Thanks for being here! Lynn Lynn Benander Manager, Co-op Power 413-772-8898
Hi everyone: I have heard concerns that the PVREC is planning to: 1) Shut down this forum, and then 2) Release a new regional plan that does not mention any projects by name at all. Is this true? This would be ideal for Russell Biomass. It would effectively keep the controversy over Russell Biomass (and Springfield Biomass) from getting out to a wider audience. Will the new draft of the regional plan again promote "clean" energy without explaining how unclean it is considered to be by many of us? I look forward to hearing from Catherine or someone on this because we had already come to a mutual agreement and a positive understanding. I hope this is just a rumor and that everything is as we had agreed. Best -- Jana
Anyone who trusts someone whose salary depends upon something needs to wake up - those parties are NEVER impartial or open to any facts that disagree with their position on their something - Their part in any real discussion where the point is to understand the FACTS should be discounted, perhaps even ignored. Great quote form Mr. Sinclair. Thank You Mr. Caputo, and John, what have you got to say for yourself. Will you hold on to dogma or be willing to be open to the facts? I don't see anyone who lives in the Russel Community who believes that this will be good for the area, or for their health and quality of life - except for various local govornment officials - it makes me wonder what benifit they plan on deriving by stiking thier town with this problem. I personally think it's time to shoot this thing down and concentrate on the viable (and truly clean, non-destructive)alternatives that exist today, and work on sane projects for the future. We can either get ouselves together, or we can die poor slaves to the Corporate Police State and their Lackeys, Happy Birthday, ej p.s. Invest Heavily in Fond Memories and WAGES, not Profits.
Great article. It pretty clearly shows me that the project in Russel is NOT a viable solution if we want truly Clean, Sustainable, Non-Poluting Energy. I think it sums up very well the game we are forced to play. We need to be able to work around the propaganda (from all those who have an agenda and don't really care about a viable solution to the problem at hand) and get to the real heart of the matter. This story is only about the situation in Russel, but iit shows what is happening as far as the process betewen the humans with a stake in the situation and thus is a is a great mirror to how most things get done in this country today. It is NOT good for The People. It is way past time for The People (us Liberals too) to wake up to who their real enimies are and start talking to their real friends, over the objections of The Establishment. Our Communities are being destroyed on purpose. Fighting the trend and being Communities is our only chance a self deterimned future. If a critical mass of The People are not able to see beyond all the Marketing and clearly discuss and think together about the issues and viable solutions we will never solve the energy crisis we about to experience, never mind all the other problems, and we will all die as slaves in the Police State. Is that what you want for your children and grandchildren? How much asthma and cancer can you stand in your family? We waste most of our GNP on transfers to The Rich and we lap up their mis-information without questioning the 'facts' they present. We have the resources to solve ALL of our problems (we could take the graft money out of elections, have roads, schools, and hospitals, etc.) if we wake up and start using OUR money for OUR needs. A great thinker from the Ninteenth Century (name escapes me for now) was once criticized for being inconsistant. His reply, (to paraphrase) When I am presented with new information I adjust my position instead of holding on to dogma. Invest heavily in Fond Memories and WAGES, not Profits, ej p.s. Happy Birthday! Save (and Enforce) The Constituion!!!
Attached is an article I wrote for New England Watershed Magazine. Best -- Jana
David Caputo asked me to forward this message to the list for him. It's a response to John Bos's questions to him.
Note the following report, at [below, I hope] What it seems to amount to is that the Commonwealth of Mass. has paid the promoters of this power plant project to do "public outreach" to manipulate residents into supporting it. I've just pulled out a few interesting quotes. I did some highlighting in red but don't know whether that will show up as posted. My main points, as usual, are (1) there is no integrity to be assumed in "public outreach" activities; (2) a key objective of them is to get people to waste their energy arguing with those causing the problem, rather than putting that energy into an effective "outreach" effort of their own; and (3) to get people to think about the implications for democracy of government-funded propaganda campaigns on behalf of special interests....it takes a lot of smarts and careful planning to successfully oppose a professional disinformation campaign that has government support. It's not impossible, but it's not easy. Alan Muller Green Delaware RUSSELL BIOMASS POWER PLANT Pre-Construction Development Activities Final Report for Loan No. GP-05-13 Funded by the Predevelopment Financing Initiative of The Renewable Energy Trust Clean Energy Program ABSTRACT This report describes pre-construction project development activities for a 50 MW biomass-fired electric generation plant in Russell, Massachusetts. These activities were funded in part by a loan to the developer, Russell Biomass LLC, from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative through the Predevelopment Financing Initiative of the Renewable Energy Trust Clean Energy Program. The activities described in this report include public outreach, preliminary plant and site engineering, initiation of the permitting and transmission line interconnection process, obtaining expressions of interest from biomass fuel suppliers and prospective power purchasers, and preparation of a development funding solicitation memorandum. All activities were completed successfully, and the project has advanced to the next stage of development, securing the remaining permits and approvals. Key words: biomass, biomass power plant, biomass boiler, biomass fuel supply, public outreach, permitting, transmission line interconnection, power purchase solicitation, development financing. SUMMARY This report describes pre-construction project development activities of Russell Biomass LLC in the development of a 50 MW biomass-fired electric generation plant on 18 acres of a 70-acre site that is owned by the developers and is located in the town of Russell in Western Massachusetts. The first stage of development, a feasibility study that helped assure that no technical or permitting fatal flaws existed, was started in May 2004 and completed successfully in January 2005. In the fall of 2004 Russell Biomass applied for a loan to provide partial financing for the second phase of development, February-June 2005, to finalize plant design and cost parameters, secure a Special Permit from the Town of Russell, obtain expressions of interest for biomass fuel supply and power purchase, and obtain financing for the remaining 18 months of project development. MTC provided a loan of $150,000 to support these activities, and the developers were required to provide a cash match of at least 25%. The project was successful in meeting the objectives. It appears to be technically and economically viable, and the developers expect to receive a commitment for development funding by October 2005. The MTC loan played a key role in moving the project forward. The developers have initiated work on the third stage of development, securing the remaining permits and approvals. The project is on track to complete pre-construction development activities in the first quarter of 2007, and following a 2-year construction period, to start commercial operation by the second quarter of 2009. The following tasks were included in the project and are described in this report: Task 1: Carry out public outreach program Task 2: Preliminary plant engineering Task 3: Site engineering Task 4: Initiate permit applications Task 5: Transmission line design Task 6: Fuel supply commitments Task 7: Power sale options Task 8: Project financial viability and development financing Task 9: Project reporting Task 1 Russell Biomass initiated a public outreach program in order to ensure broad public support and maximize the likelihood that the Town of Russell would grant a Special Permit for the project. The program involved conducting a survey of all Russell voters to determine what residents thought of the project and developing communications to respond to resident concerns about the project and highlight project benefits. Task 4 The permitting task was focused on obtaining a Special Permit for the project from the Town of Russell and on documenting the permitting issues associated with the use of Clean Recycled Wood (CRW) from C&D sources. Russell Biomass prepared and submitted the Special Permit application and participated in three public hearings held by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board. The boards approved the Special Permit at the final hearing, although the developers were forced to drop plans to use CRW because of strong objections to this fuel from project opponents. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Russell Biomass LLC is developing a base load, 50 MW net biomass-fired (wood fueled) electric generation plant on 18 acres of a 70-acre site. The site is owned by the developers and is located in the town of Russell in Western Massachusetts. About 500,000 tons of biomass fuel, which is comprised of whole tree chips from land clearing and tree trimming and ground stumps and pallets, will be consumed annually. [Note from Muller: This equals roughly 23,000 truckloads/year, as 22 tons/truckload. Assuming continuous operation, this corresponds to about 62 round/trips per day, and of course this does not including hauling the ash out.] The developers have strong experience and skills suited to a biomass power plant development. The team includes a developer, Peter Bos, who previously developed a 45 MW, 450,000 tpy wood fueled biomass plant in Maine; William Hull, a forester who owns the site, runs a sawmill in Connecticut, and has previous biomass power plant development experience; Robert Berti and James Dammann, foresters who have been procuring wood fuel for biomass plants for 20 years; and James Ramsey, a registered professional engineer and businessman. The ARS Group LLC (ARS) owned by Peter Bos was the lead developer on the successful 45 MW, 450,000 tons/year Stratton wood fired electric generation plant built in 1989. [What's the relationshop between John Bos and Peter Bos?] The developers have assembled a highly qualified team of seven engineering and consulting firms, all of which are currently working on the project: Tighe & Bond, Inc. Permitting, site engineering, transmission line Tech Environmental, Inc. Air, noise permitting Waldron Engineering, Inc. Power plant engineering Energy Management Group Power marketing Financial Management Group LLC Financing, power marketing John Bos & Associates/Chestnut Productions LLC Public outreach [Note: A quick search found no site or other activities for the above] In mid-2004 William Hull formed a development team to investigate the feasibility of developing a biomass power plant on the Russell site. The developers met with Russell selectmen in June and December 2004 to describe the project concept and hear about key issues from the town, and once with the assessors to discuss property taxes. The Town of Russell has been supportive of the biomass power plant project from the outset. The small town (population 1500) lost approximately 125 jobs and substantial tax revenues when Westfield River Paper Company abandoned the site in 1995. The proposed power plant, providing 50 construction jobs for 2 years, 23 new permanent operating jobs, and a 20% increase in the town?s property tax revenues, would be a significant economic development boost for the community. In addition to supportive Town officials, the developers knew that broad public support for the project was necessary in order to secure a Special Permit from the Town, a key approval for the project. The permit application was planned for March 2005, and in January Russell Biomass engaged consultants John Bos & Associates and Chestnut Productions to develop a public outreach program to gain public support for the project. The public outreach effort involved two tasks: ? Conduct a survey of all Russell voters to learn what Russell residents thought about the proposed power plant ? Develop effective public communications and education to respond to resident concerns about the project and highlight project benefits PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AND EDUCATION Following the survey and immediately prior to the first Special Permit hearing in April 2005, Russell Biomass published a 4-page newspaper supplement in the Country Journal, the local weekly newspaper serving Russell and other communities, entitled ?Why a Biomass Power Plant for Russell?? The supplement, developed by the outreach consultants, included a description and frequently asked questions about the project, voter survey results, a brief explanation of biomass energy, and a timeline of industrial activity at the Russell project site (which reminded residents that the site had a 100+-year history of industrial operations prior to the closing of the Westfield River Paper Company in 1995). The three Special Permit hearings (April, May and June) afforded the developers an excellent opportunity to respond to citizen concerns and communicate the benefits of the project. At least 3 of the five developers and two Tighe & Bond managers attended each meeting. Considerable effort was spent between meetings preparing responses to questions, mainly related to project impacts (e.g., truck traffic, visual) from the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board. The hearings were challenging due to the intensity of citizen concerns regarding traffic and other project impacts. Just prior to the second and third hearings, the developers were warned that well-organized opposition groups would attempt to delay or stop the project with damaging (perhaps exaggerated) information on project impacts. Preparing for these interventions at the last minute was a severe challenge. The public outreach consultants were helpful in crafting responses to the anticipated challenge. As part of its effort to inform Russell citizens about the planned development, 10 days prior to the third hearing Russell Biomass arranged for approximately 30 residents to visit the 17 MW Pinetree biomass power plant in Westminster, MA. The Russell group was given a guided tour of the Pinetree facility and attended a technical presentation by the ... in the end the Town approved the permit, affirming the positive response from the voter survey. The public outreach effort was essential to this successful outcome. Fortunately the developers had some advance notice of this opposition, which afforded the opportunity to evaluate whether the power plant would be economically viable if the relatively inexpensive CRW were not available to the project. Having determined that the plant would be viable without it, during the hearing the developers agreed not to use CRW until the Town approved it at some later date and did not agree to a delay in the process. Both boards voted to approve the Special Permit at the conclusion of the hearing. While Russell Biomass was ultimately forced to give up the CRW option, during the course of the project the developers were able to develop a better understanding of the permitting issues associated with the use of this material as a power plant fuel. The developers and engineering consultants met twice with DEP to discuss CRW issues, and Tech Environmental conducted a literature search and file reviews of air permits at the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and Maine Department of Environmental Protection, to document metals content in CRW and in the air emissions and ash resulting from CRW combustion. Nearly all of the lead and other metals in CRW wind up in the combustion ash; the small quantities of metals that go up the stack are expected to result in ambient concentrations that are within current environmental standards. Chlorine contained in CRW may result in uncontrolled emissions of HCl that exceed the standards, necessitating the inclusion of a limestone injection system in the boiler to neutralize the HCl. [Muller: Do you really believe these guys don't plan, ultimately, to burn C & D?] It would be to the project?s financial advantage for DEP to determine that the ash could be land applied, rather than requiring disposal as a hazardous waste. [Transmission line stuff] Northeast Utilities had a transmission line in the proposed Russell Biomass corridor until the early 1980s, when the line was decommissioned and ultimately removed. So the developers made the case to EFSB that the corridor is ?existing? and EFSB would not have jurisdiction since the line is less than 10 miles in length. Unfortunately, because the corridor has been inactive for more than 20 years, few indications of the previous use remain, and after observing the route EFSB determined the corridor to be ?new?, not existing. While it would be desirable for the new line to be 115 KV, the project is considering a voltage less than 69 KV in order to avoid EFSB jurisdiction. If EFSB review is not required, the developers will vigorously attempt to avoid DTE jurisdiction as well. Fuel will include [ie, not be limited to?] whole tree chips from land clearing, road side tree trimming and power line maintenance, and ground stumps and pallets. [Fuel supply table] I don't know if the table below will appear in the posting, but note that item 6 is "paper cubes" (51,500 tons from MA and more from CT, NY). Papers, with ink, glue, and whatall on it, has its own emissions issues. Paper should be recycled, not burnt. am Green Delaware
Note the following report, at http://www.mtpc.org/Project%20Deliverables/GP_FinalReport_Russell.pdf What it seems to amount to is that the Commonwealth of Mass. has paid the promoters of this power plant project to do "public outreach" to manipulate residents into supporting it. I've just pulled out a few interesting quotes. I did some highlighting in red but don't know whether that will show up as posted. My main points, as usual, are (1) there is no integrity to be assumed in "public outreach" activities; (2) a key objective of them is to get people to waste their energy arguing with those causing the problem, rather than putting that energy into an effective "outreach" effort of their own; and (3) to get people to think about the implications for democracy of government-funded propaganda campaigns on behalf of special interests....it takes a lot of smarts and careful planning to successfully oppose a professional disinformation campaign that has government support. It's not impossible, but it's not easy. Alan Muller Green Delaware RUSSELL BIOMASS POWER PLANT Pre-Construction Development Activities Final Report for Loan No. GP-05-13 Funded by the Predevelopment Financing Initiative of The Renewable Energy Trust Clean Energy Program ABSTRACT This report describes pre-construction project development activities for a 50 MW biomass-fired electric generation plant in Russell, Massachusetts. These activities were funded in part by a loan to the developer, Russell Biomass LLC, from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative through the Predevelopment Financing Initiative of the Renewable Energy Trust Clean Energy Program. The activities described in this report include public outreach, preliminary plant and site engineering, initiation of the permitting and transmission line interconnection process, obtaining expressions of interest from biomass fuel suppliers and prospective power purchasers, and preparation of a development funding solicitation memorandum. All activities were completed successfully, and the project has advanced to the next stage of development, securing the remaining permits and approvals. Key words: biomass, biomass power plant, biomass boiler, biomass fuel supply, public outreach, permitting, transmission line interconnection, power purchase solicitation, development financing. SUMMARY This report describes pre-construction project development activities of Russell Biomass LLC in the development of a 50 MW biomass-fired electric generation plant on 18 acres of a 70-acre site that is owned by the developers and is located in the town of Russell in Western Massachusetts. The first stage of development, a feasibility study that helped assure that no technical or permitting fatal flaws existed, was started in May 2004 and completed successfully in January 2005. In the fall of 2004 Russell Biomass applied for a loan to provide partial financing for the second phase of development, February-June 2005, to finalize plant design and cost parameters, secure a Special Permit from the Town of Russell, obtain expressions of interest for biomass fuel supply and power purchase, and obtain financing for the remaining 18 months of project development. MTC provided a loan of $150,000 to support these activities, and the developers were required to provide a cash match of at least 25%. The project was successful in meeting the objectives. It appears to be technically and economically viable, and the developers expect to receive a commitment for development funding by October 2005. The MTC loan played a key role in moving the project forward. The developers have initiated work on the third stage of development, securing the remaining permits and approvals. The project is on track to complete pre-construction development activities in the first quarter of 2007, and following a 2-year construction period, to start commercial operation by the second quarter of 2009. The following tasks were included in the project and are described in this report: Task 1: Carry out public outreach program Task 2: Preliminary plant engineering Task 3: Site engineering Task 4: Initiate permit applications Task 5: Transmission line design Task 6: Fuel supply commitments Task 7: Power sale options Task 8: Project financial viability and development financing Task 9: Project reporting Task 1 Russell Biomass initiated a public outreach program in order to ensure broad public support and maximize the likelihood that the Town of Russell would grant a Special Permit for the project. The program involved conducting a survey of all Russell voters to determine what residents thought of the project and developing communications to respond to resident concerns about the project and highlight project benefits. Task 4 The permitting task was focused on obtaining a Special Permit for the project from the Town of Russell and on documenting the permitting issues associated with the use of Clean Recycled Wood (CRW) from C&D sources. Russell Biomass prepared and submitted the Special Permit application and participated in three public hearings held by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board. The boards approved the Special Permit at the final hearing, although the developers were forced to drop plans to use CRW because of strong objections to this fuel from project opponents. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Russell Biomass LLC is developing a base load, 50 MW net biomass-fired (wood fueled) electric generation plant on 18 acres of a 70-acre site. The site is owned by the developers and is located in the town of Russell in Western Massachusetts. About 500,000 tons of biomass fuel, which is comprised of whole tree chips from land clearing and tree trimming and ground stumps and pallets, will be consumed annually. [Note from Muller: This equals roughly 23,000 truckloads/year, as 22 tons/truckload. Assuming continuous operation, this corresponds to about 62 round/trips per day, and of course this does not including hauling the ash out.] The developers have strong experience and skills suited to a biomass power plant development. The team includes a developer, Peter Bos, who previously developed a 45 MW, 450,000 tpy wood fueled biomass plant in Maine; William Hull, a forester who owns the site, runs a sawmill in Connecticut, and has previous biomass power plant development experience; Robert Berti and James Dammann, foresters who have been procuring wood fuel for biomass plants for 20 years; and James Ramsey, a registered professional engineer and businessman. The ARS Group LLC (ARS) owned by Peter Bos was the lead developer on the successful 45 MW, 450,000 tons/year Stratton wood fired electric generation plant built in 1989. [What's the relationshop between John Bos and Peter Bos?] The developers have assembled a highly qualified team of seven engineering and consulting firms, all of which are currently working on the project: Tighe & Bond, Inc. Permitting, site engineering, transmission line Tech Environmental, Inc. Air, noise permitting Waldron Engineering, Inc. Power plant engineering Energy Management Group Power marketing Financial Management Group LLC Financing, power marketing John Bos & Associates/Chestnut Productions LLC Public outreach [Note: A quick search found no site or other activities for the above] In mid-2004 William Hull formed a development team to investigate the feasibility of developing a biomass power plant on the Russell site. The developers met with Russell selectmen in June and December 2004 to describe the project concept and hear about key issues from the town, and once with the assessors to discuss property taxes. The Town of Russell has been supportive of the biomass power plant project from the outset. The small town (population 1500) lost approximately 125 jobs and substantial tax revenues when Westfield River Paper Company abandoned the site in 1995. The proposed power plant, providing 50 construction jobs for 2 years, 23 new permanent operating jobs, and a 20% increase in the town?s property tax revenues, would be a significant economic development boost for the community. In addition to supportive Town officials, the developers knew that broad public support for the project was necessary in order to secure a Special Permit from the Town, a key approval for the project. The permit application was planned for March 2005, and in January Russell Biomass engaged consultants John Bos & Associates and Chestnut Productions to develop a public outreach program to gain public support for the project. The public outreach effort involved two tasks: ? Conduct a survey of all Russell voters to learn what Russell residents thought about the proposed power plant ? Develop effective public communications and education to respond to resident concerns about the project and highlight project benefits PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AND EDUCATION Following the survey and immediately prior to the first Special Permit hearing in April 2005, Russell Biomass published a 4-page newspaper supplement in the Country Journal, the local weekly newspaper serving Russell and other communities, entitled ?Why a Biomass Power Plant for Russell?? The supplement, developed by the outreach consultants, included a description and frequently asked questions about the project, voter survey results, a brief explanation of biomass energy, and a timeline of industrial activity at the Russell project site (which reminded residents that the site had a 100+-year history of industrial operations prior to the closing of the Westfield River Paper Company in 1995). The three Special Permit hearings (April, May and June) afforded the developers an excellent opportunity to respond to citizen concerns and communicate the benefits of the project. At least 3 of the five developers and two Tighe & Bond managers attended each meeting. Considerable effort was spent between meetings preparing responses to questions, mainly related to project impacts (e.g., truck traffic, visual) from the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board. The hearings were challenging due to the intensity of citizen concerns regarding traffic and other project impacts. Just prior to the second and third hearings, the developers were warned that well-organized opposition groups would attempt to delay or stop the project with damaging (perhaps exaggerated) information on project impacts. Preparing for these interventions at the last minute was a severe challenge. The public outreach consultants were helpful in crafting responses to the anticipated challenge. As part of its effort to inform Russell citizens about the planned development, 10 days prior to the third hearing Russell Biomass arranged for approximately 30 residents to visit the 17 MW Pinetree biomass power plant in Westminster, MA. The Russell group was given a guided tour of the Pinetree facility and attended a technical presentation by the ... in the end the Town approved the permit, affirming the positive response from the voter survey. The public outreach effort was essential to this successful outcome. Fortunately the developers had some advance notice of this opposition, which afforded the opportunity to evaluate whether the power plant would be economically viable if the relatively inexpensive CRW were not available to the project. Having determined that the plant would be viable without it, during the hearing the developers agreed not to use CRW until the Town approved it at some later date and did not agree to a delay in the process. Both boards voted to approve the Special Permit at the conclusion of the hearing. While Russell Biomass was ultimately forced to give up the CRW option, during the course of the project the developers were able to develop a better understanding of the permitting issues associated with the use of this material as a power plant fuel. The developers and engineering consultants met twice with DEP to discuss CRW issues, and Tech Environmental conducted a literature search and file reviews of air permits at the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and Maine Department of Environmental Protection, to document metals content in CRW and in the air emissions and ash resulting from CRW combustion. Nearly all of the lead and other metals in CRW wind up in the combustion ash; the small quantities of metals that go up the stack are expected to result in ambient concentrations that are within current environmental standards. Chlorine contained in CRW may result in uncontrolled emissions of HCl that exceed the standards, necessitating the inclusion of a limestone injection system in the boiler to neutralize the HCl. [Muller: Do you really believe these guys don't plan, ultimately, to burn C & D?] It would be to the project?s financial advantage for DEP to determine that the ash could be land applied, rather than requiring disposal as a hazardous waste. [Transmission line stuff] Northeast Utilities had a transmission line in the proposed Russell Biomass corridor until the early 1980s, when the line was decommissioned and ultimately removed. So the developers made the case to EFSB that the corridor is ?existing? and EFSB would not have jurisdiction since the line is less than 10 miles in length. Unfortunately, because the corridor has been inactive for more than 20 years, few indications of the previous use remain, and after observing the route EFSB determined the corridor to be ?new?, not existing. While it would be desirable for the new line to be 115 KV, the project is considering a voltage less than 69 KV in order to avoid EFSB jurisdiction. If EFSB review is not required, the developers will vigorously attempt to avoid DTE jurisdiction as well. Fuel will include [ie, not be limited to?] whole tree chips from land clearing, road side tree trimming and power line maintenance, and ground stumps and pallets. [Fuel supply table] I don't know if the table below will appear in the posting, but note that item 6 is "paper cubes" (51,500 tons from MA and more from CT, NY). Papers, with ink, glue, and whatall on it, has its own emissions issues. Paper should be recycled, not burnt. am Green Delaware
I received the following message privately from Mr. Bos, the PR guy for the
burner project. It is a manipulative technique to sometimes respond privately
and sometimes publicly....so I'm posting it.
I really don't have time to respond to all the items in his post, but will to
this one:
[John Bos writes] Your opposition to that project [in Minnesota] is based on
the fact that it would include refuse derived waste in its fuel mix. That is
not the case with Russell Biomass.
Not so. A key point I was trying to make in St. Paul is that even if you
exclude garbage ("RDF") and and demolition debris("C&D")the emissions of
particulates (PM-2.5...) will be similar and these are a serious health threat
Hello Everyone, I have been getting personal emails from John Bos and I want everyone to understand something,?back on Feb 22,? I posted in the Russell Biomass Forum that I did not want any personal contact from John Boss.? Despite this request, he has been personally emailing me his responses to my postings and I would like the forum moderator to ask him to post?his replies on the forum and stop personally emailing me.??? It wouldn't be a huge deal, except for the fact that I have?already declined his request for the personal contact.?? If I receive anymore personal emails, especially from someone that I have already asked not to contact me,? I want?everyone to be aware that the personal email will be forwarded and posted?to this forum, in it's entirety.????If there is anyone else?in the same situation, please post?the responses you have been given?as well.???I am taking time from my daily work schedule?to read and be a part of this forum because I believe these issues are important.?? If the responses aren't posted, then what is the point of the forum in the first place.? Just because one person?poses the question, doesn't mean that?all of us are not interested in knowing the answers.?? ? ? The most resent email?from John Bos stated that he believes that the American Lung Association will never support or endorse the Location,? but that I would need to?confirm it with Jeff Seyler since he cannot speak for the ALA.??(Copy of email is below)? If Location is?the problem, I don't see how?that can be fixed.? Unless,?Russell Biomass is?planning to move mountains.??? ? If the American Lung Association is still on this forum,? would you please confirm what John Bos is saying? ? Lee Martin Westfield, MA
To all: I follow this discussion because of an interest in energy alternatives. I've heard numerous references to "burning whole trees" but can't intuit what difference it makes to burn whole vs. cut-up, split-up, shredded, or otherwise un-whole trees. Is it that whole tress may have a higher moisture content and thus less BTU potential, or is it just the idea of it that's upsetting? Thanks, Jeff Lacy
I was not going to respond to the post from John Bos. After all, he signs as "Public Information Officer RUSSELL BIOMASS LLC" so obviously his job is to promote the facility and nobody is likely to deter him with argument from doing his job..... But there are actually some interesting claims or comments in his post. In the post John responds to I wrote "I consider myself something of a student of manipulated public involvement processes." He says; "As a self-professed "student of manipulated public involvement processes," what do you make of these facts? There's no manipulation in this message...just a presentation of factual information all of which is verifiable." I say the message is full of manipulation. For instance, you write: "Ask yourself if Cooley Dickenson Hospital would operate a wood boiler (NOT an incinerator) in the hospital building complex if there was ANY possibility that it would be harmful to patients. I don't thinkso." Well, it might. Many hospitals burn "medical waste," emitting dioxin. But in any case how is this "verifiable?" You wrote: "Do you think it was "manipulative public involvement" for the Toxics ActionCenter to award Russell Biomass a "Dirty Dozen Award" for emissions from a power plant that exists only on paper and for which accurate, FACTUAL emission measurements are not possible to make?" Well, lets see .... You say, correctly, that "... FACTUAL emission measurements are not possible to make?" But you want the community to let you build the plant and trust you that the emissions will not be harmful ....? Will you shut it down if people don't like the results of measurements after startup? You write: "Do you view as fact the constant charge that Russell Biomass will one day, if not now, burn construction and demolition wood (C&D) as fuel? There is now on record at Russell Town Hall a signed legal agreement to never burn such material...a guarantee that extends to any and all future owners of the power plant should it ever be sold. If the opposition one more time asserts that we will burn C&D, would you consider that as manipulative? Or deliberate disinformation?" How about sending me a scan of that "signed legal agreement" and posting it on this site? you wrote: "FACT: Voting for or against the PVPC Clean Energy Plan has absolutely NO impact on whether the Russell Biomass electric power plant will be built or not. That decision is in the hands of twenty different state agencies and departments charged with assessing, approving or disapproving of the projects plant design and operations." Hmmm. Are you saying that the views of the "host community" don't matter and you will build it whether people want it or not? Are you willing to post a list of permits and approvals you have applied for and copies of those applications, particularly an air permit application? You wrote: "PVPC plan lost the referendum in the same way that the local Russell biomass plant "referendum" in Russell failed for the second time in two years to unseat a highly popular selectboard member who supports the plant ONLY IF it passes the permitting process." Are you suggesting there is a significant possibility that permits would be denied? Since permits are seldom denied, I think that encouraging people to rely on the permitting process, if you are doing that, would be deceptive. But, perhaps you can tell us what percentage of air permit applications in MA have been denied in the last 5 or 10 years, so folks can form their own opinions? You write: "Bottom line is that to do nothing is morally indefensible." Are you suggesting it is immoral to oppose your wood burner project? Writing about the "biomass" industry, you write: "Of the 43 that were in operation in California in 1994, only 29 are currently producing electricity. ten are available to come back into service with the right incentives." You write: "So at a time when more biomass facilities are needed, fewer and fewer are in operation." "Across the country in 2003, there were approximately 80 operating biomass power plants. These plants are located in 19 states. In addition, there were about 40 plants which could have been operable, but which were not." One wonders why people should support a new biomass burner in Western MA when about fifty percent of them nationally are shut down. What sort of deals have been cut that makes such an expensive and polluting power source appealing to investors in this case (Russell)? OK< enough out of me. I think people should probably stop arguing with promoters of the burner and spend that energy organizing to stop it... Alan Muller Green Delaware
Hi Lynn, This post regards the current state of affairs relating to the e-democracy forums and the Russell Biomass proposal. On July 2, 2007 you wrote in part "As leaders in the community working for sustainable energy solutions, the Pioneer Valley Clean Energy Collaborative created this forum to encourage discussion." Personally speaking, I note it is quite apparent that this discussion is taking place. You further stated "...good people believe there is a role for biomass plants in our region and other thoughtful, good people disagree. I'd personally like to be a part of that conversation. There are things I'd like to talk about that I haven't been able to discuss given the tone here." I would have to reply that under the e-demo heading of "Pioneer Valley Clean Energy Discussion" there are numerous groups providing "OTHER opportunities for participation." Lynn, I am not being a wise guy with the caps, the previous phrase is simply what is written on the page. One group category is simply marked "Biomass. This group apparently has zero members. One would also think that the discussions relating to other biomass plants should be directed to that specific forum, but this has not been the case. In addition, I have been following news of the Swift River hydroelectric project which is located just downstream of the proposed Russell plant. I know of a couple of old mill dams in Westfield that might have similar potential for development. Alas, the group marked "Hydro" also has zero members. If I wasn't so wrapped up in the Russell discussion I would be posting there. In any case, it is obvious the bulk of the activity on these boards really revolves around the Russell proposal. Lynn, please allow me to make a brief observation concerning the "tone" of the conversations. On June 29, 2007 you wrote "Just to clarify what I meant when I said I thought we needed to demand less and listen more, I was talking about the tone of our conversation. I think asking questions is great. People just don't respond when someone demands they do things." As most of the folks on the Russell Biomass boards have noted, I have been posting criticisms of the data found in the old 2005 Russell Biomass Expanded Environmental Notification Form, along with its various appended studies. Despite the fact that the proponents will in the next few weeks submit a new Draft Environmental Impact Report, the old EENF and its related studies are the only data that has been made publicly available concerning the project. For well over one year, I and others have been asking for either new information, or data that clarifies the gaps in the EENF. I will state again that the Russell Biomass Public Information Officer has refused to provide additional up to date information on the project. Note for example that previous questions relating to water discharges have gone unanswered. I noted on June 22, 2007 "...the EENF is getting a bit long in the tooth. The paucity of recent information concerning the plant is staggering." Allow me to also mention that Russell Biomass Information Officer John Bos has rarely, if never, addressed any of the conclusions in my previous posts over the last year. It is this state of affairs that has caused the "tone" of the conversation to become more strident. On the other hand, I fully expect that the soon to be published Draft Environmental Impact Report, or DEIR, will address many of these concerns. It should be available in the next few weeks and contain both recent and revised environmental studies relating to the proposal. Lynn, you also wrote "Many of the opponents to the Russell Biomass Plant believe we are either ill-intentioned or duped." Allow me to illustrate a slight of hand concerning the Third Party Review of the scientific studies. On June 21, 2007 I posted "I am rather concerned that the Third Party will receive "new" data that has not to this moment been made available for public consumption." While this was a not too subtle allusion to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, it is curious to note that Phil LaBranche stated in part the same day: "ARI has become the other set of eyes to review what is going on and what has been said. There will be no new studies done, as the job of ARI is to review what Russell Biomass has already submitted/completed." END QUOTE It is most puzzling that there is nary a mention of the new Draft Environmental Impact Report in the post. The phrase "there will be no new studies done" oddly even suggests that the Third Party will be looking at the old data. On the other hand the new studies found in the Draft Environmental Impact Report will most certainly be made available in the 90 day review period. Maybe he just forgot to mention it. Phil LaBranche also stated: "The purpose of the Third Party Review is to have another set of eyes review the data that Russell Biomass has submitted. Presently there has been much contention as to which "facts" are true-Russell Biomass, LLC saying they are telling the truth, while CCR saying they're not." END QUOTE From my perspective, the "controversy relating to facts" concerns prior statements found in the old EENF and related studies. It does not relate to "facts" in the new Draft Environmental Impact Report, simply because it has yet to be published. Again, there is no doubt this new document will attempt to address many of the issues previously presented by myself and others. I will further assume that the proponents will view this document as vindicating their position. While I have no problem at all with the Third Party Review accessing the revised material, what concerns me here is this line of discourse that attempts to establish (my quote) "who is right and who is wrong." It is curious to note that this "right - wrong" dichotomy is also a principal feature of a recent post by Russell Biomass Information Officer John Bos. On June 19, 2007 Mr. Bos wrote in the Russell Biomass II forum: "If Jonathan is correct in his criticisms they will be verified by the Town's consultant. On the other hand if Russell Biomass is correct that will also be verified." END QUOTE Bos also stated: "CCR spokesman Jonathan Long articulates a number of important environmental concerns about the proposed Russell Biomass power plant and questions whether our health and environmental impact studies were done correctly. Therefore, he should be should be eagerly looking forward to the results of a third party review of our impact studies now in process by a highly qualified environmental consultant." END QUOTE Again it is curious to note that he carefully avoids mentioning the Draft Environmental Impact Report in the post. Again, maybe it slipped his mind. My unease stems from the possibility that this is an attempt to discredit critics of the proposal, such as myself. My personal criticisms have been levied against information stemming only from available documentation. Some of this dates from 2005. While there is no doubt that the new DEIR will contain up to date studies and data, the problem is that it has not yet been made accessible. I have not yet read it. While Phil LaBranche and John Bos have not stated as such, I have no doubt that the Third Party reviewing the data will be referencing the new DEIR and not the musty old EENF. To currently establish "who is right and who is wrong" on this basis is flat wrong and I for one, refuse to be duped. Regarding the folks who want this forum shut down. I say disregard them. It takes civic courage to state your opinion through posting. I'm sure those same folks were happy when Ms. O'Donnell left The View.
Maybe a real discussion about clean energy in the valley will take place on this forum, or maybe people invested in harmful technologies will manage to shut this forum down. In any case, we certainly need to have this discussion, we need to possess the reins of public policy to protect our families from those who would harm them -- and we need to have the freedom to be blunt about manipulated public processes, bad projects, and disingenuous PR men. There is a national movement for energy justice with some absolutely amazing people and great organizations all tied together pushing for our government to do the right thing. Please check out Energy Justice, starting by clicking the link below to this simple Clean Energy Fact Sheet which states: "A combination of conservation, efficiency, wind and solar can meet 100% of our energy needs. Its technically and economically possible to do this and it can probably be done within 20 years." http://www.energyjustice.net/solutions/factsheet.html Together we can do this in Massachusetts and throughout the country and the world. It has recently been calculated that to ward off catastrophic global warming we would have to cut our carbon emissions worldwide by 90% in the next ten years. This may seem impossible -- and it certainly is grievous beyond description that we did not do this thiry years ago when we knew we could and should have -- but it can be done if the political will is garnered and focused. That is, if the people are unwilling to be snookered into more foolish choices. The Big Boys have driven us to the brink of disaster and will have no problem driving us right over the edge. Right now, Biomass and Nuclear are fighting like vultures over the carcass of our earthly home, squawking that they are next in line for our support and are truly, really "clean" and not filthy as they blatantly appear to every thinking person. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. "A combination of conservation, efficiency, wind and solar can meet 100% of our energy needs. Its technically and economically possible to do this and it can probably be done within 20 years." "A combination of conservation, efficiency, wind and solar can meet 100% of our energy needs. Its technically and economically possible to do this and it can probably be done within 20 years." "A combination of conservation, efficiency, wind and solar can meet 100% of our energy needs. Its technically and economically possible to do this and it can probably be done within 20 years." "A combination of conservation, efficiency, wind and solar can meet 100% of our energy needs. Its technically and economically possible to do this and it can probably be done within 20 years." "A combination of conservation, efficiency, wind and solar can meet 100% of our energy needs. Its technically and economically possible to do this and it can probably be done within 20 years." Sincerely, for clean energy for everyone -- jana
To David Caputo: A statement of fact in response to your July 1 post and two questions: The Russell Biomass facility will not be, as you state, a "whole-tree burning plant." First question: please document your source for this statement. The plant will, however, burn wood waste (not including C&D), that is fast accumulating in Massachusetts and New England from forest management, road clearing, new house construction activities, etc. with no place to go. Second question: please site the source for your statement that "The Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust has HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars at its disposal." This is good news for people interested in renewable energy. John Bos Public Information Officer RUSSELL BIOMASS LLC
As leaders in the community working for sustainable energy solutions, the Pioneer Valley Clean Energy Collaborative created this forum to encourage discussion. Many of the opponents to the Russel Biomass Plant believe we are either ill-intentioned or duped. I don't see anything funny here. Most of the people in this forum want to do other things than listen to how ill-intentioned or duped the leadership is. Since we have been unable to invite people into a respectful dialog, I'm hearing from people that they'd like to see the forum closed down. As an alternative, we could have a moderated forum where only comments that reflected the belief that thoughtful, good people believe there is a role for biomass plants in our region and other thoughtful, good people disagree. I'd personally like to be a part of that conversation. There are things I'd like to talk about that I haven't been able to discuss given the tone here.
Dear fellow forum participants, As someone who's pretty much just been a Lurker here, I can say that I've very much appreciated the dynamic and vigorous debate that has taken place in this forum. I designed http://www.PVSustain.com for Catherine Miller and the PVPC back several years ago, and have watched with some dismay as the project essentially became underfunded and largely abandoned, despite electricity deregulation having pumped hundreds of millions of our (the state's electric consumers) dollars into a fund allegedly created to finance such projects. I'm frankly disgusted that we don't have solar panels on all our flat roofed buildings by now, considering the vast sums of money sitting in the bank just waiting to do such a thing, were we to have the political muscle to force such an effort. I can understand the vigorous opposition to the whole-tree burning plant in Russell. What a joke. Please people.... Clean energy? The fact that this plant is even being debated in this forum, instead of being opposed like say, a nuclear reactor would be, is evidence itself of the powerful forces that concentrated economic incentive has on such a debate. I promote regional eco-friendly tourism in the area through my Hidden Hills of Western Massachusetts Map and Website - http://www.Hidden-Hills.com - Vastly increasing heavy truck traffic and constantly pumping smoke into this tiny valley with steep mountain walls would be as absolute TRAVESTY. Let there be no mistake. I'll debate anyone on this issue. Allowing this plant to go forward would be a crime against man and nature, for the private gain of a few. Just so everyone knows I'm not a fence-sitter on this issue. So... I haven't been put off by the sometimes strident and intense nature of the debate. There is a big disagreement amongst the participants in this forum about whether or not the Russell plant should be included in ANY "clean" energy plan. This is a valid debate. I've made it clear which side I'm on. The question of continuing this forum because of the "expense" associated with its continuation points out the absolutely ass-backwards priorities of our current "clean energy" funding processes. The Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust has HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars at its disposal. Why are we wondering where we can scratch up enough money to pay for an e-democracy forum and a stipend for a moderator? What's that gonna cost? The equivalent of ONE Massachusetts electric consumer's bill? Let's get real, folks. This forum is excellent, for what it is, but we need to be rattling the gates of the State House and DEMANDING that our elected representatives use the monies generated by electric deregulation which were expressly intended to finance our evolution to cleaner and more renewable energy technologies, to do just that in a way that has a real and visible impact on the lives of Massachusetts citizens. This is the real issue to me. There is a huge amount of money out there relative to the amounts we are debating now. Let's go get it and put it to good use. David Caputo President Positronic Design http://www.PositronicDesign.com Publisher http://www.Hidden-Hills.com http://www.TotallyFixed.com Lynn Benander wrote: >Good to hear from the people who weighed in on this issue already! > >If haven't responded yet, please reply and let us know if you want this forum to continue and why...what's been useful to you...what's been hard. I think to justify the energy it takes to keep this going (and $ in the future), we'll need to know it's of use to more than just a few of us! > >The Pioneer Valley Clean Energy Collaborative decided to host this forum to give another way for people to participate in the clean energy planning process. The e-democracy.org website has been generously donated to us. We'll need to pay for it at some future date. Some staff time was paid for in October, but since then it's been all volunteer. It has taken a significant amount of time from a large number of people, just to keep up with what's being posted. Is this a good investment of our time? > >Here's the feedback on the forum I've received so far... > >At it's best this forum is like having a meeting with 165 committed people available to really dig into important topics. It has been a repository of documents that people felt were important to the conversation. It's been a place where people can hear many sides of an issue. > >At it's worst this forum has been described as a platform for misinformation, suspicion, and illwill. Emotions have sometimes been high because we're leaning into topics that have a direct impact on some of the people participating here. Some people have left the forum because they have found it hard to even have the intensity of the messages coming into their email box even though they were interested in the discussion. Some people have felt the conversation is dominated by a few experts because of the length and intensity of the postings and because of the strong responses given when people raise an issue or ask a general question. > >Clearly there are a wide range of opinions about what's been happening here, but everyone has said so far, that they'd like to see the forum continue, maybe with more agreements about how to work together more constructively. > >So the question is - should this continue and if so, how? > >We'll probably need to raise some money to support this on into the future, so, if you haven't responded yet, please do! Let us know whether this forum is important to you. > >You can reply to my email (<email obscured>) directly if you'd rather not post your feedback to the forum. > >Lynn Benander >Shelburne Falls >Info about Lynn Benander: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/lynnbenander > >This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3e0xYa4mpcKuXfRkIvNgJY
Thank you John for answering my questions. For those of you who are interested, I have copied and pasted John's response below my clarification question. John, my question was: 3) Are you saying that the ALA is showing signs of supporting the project and that the ALA no longer opposes it's location? Your response was: 3) ALA will never support or endorse Russell Biomass nor do I intend to ever indicate that it would. For clarification, is your response to question #3, confirmingthat the ALA will never support or endorse the Location? Lee Martin Westfield, MA Lee, In response to your questions below: 1) My understanding, as I stated in my post on the PVPC Forum to Alan Muller, is that ALAs chief concerns are ozone emissions and particulate concentrations. 2) We are pushing the best available technology in the plant design to its maximum capacity and searching for any and all other ways to mitigate the concerns that ALA has expressed directly to us. 3) ALA will never support or endorse Russell Biomass nor do I intend to ever indicate that it would. 4) One of ALAs board members with knowledge of terrain and its effect on weather patterns remains particularly concerned about the question of terrain. Let me know if you have further questions.