Westfield River, Russell MA Update - Mass RI Council of Trout Unlimited

Horns to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection for throwing out testimony offered by Piotr Parasiewicz, a highly credentialed expert on rivers, for a hearing on a water withdrawal permit for the proposed Russell Biomass wood-fired power plant. The plant would be sited on the Westfield River, a famous fishing stream that carries the federal designation Wild and Scenic River; the developers wanted permission to draw down as much as 885,000 gallons of water a day to cool the plant.

Parasiewicz, who has worked as a researcher at Cornell and UMass and even assisted with the Index Streamflow Report for the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, could not make the hearing but submitted written testimony in advance. But it was not considered because, the state said, his information would deal with pollutants in the water rather than the drawdown per se. Yet Parasiewicz' filing did deal with water volumes, claiming, among other things, that 30 percent of water in the river in August's low flow period is already drawn down by other industries. And environmental attorney Margaret Sheehan said the state law governing water withdrawal permits mandates that water quality and the ability of a river with diminished flow to absorb pollutants be considered.

Source: http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=11073)

The Patrick administration is rethinking its support of wood-burning power plants, a key element of its long-term strategy to wean the state off fossil fuels. Wood, also known as biomass, has long been part of the state’s portfolio of renewable energy sources, along with solar, wind, and geothermal. But some environmental activists say biomass plants could lead to the clear cutting of forests while pumping more carbon dioxide into the air than coal plants, adding to global warming. That criticism has ramped up recently in Western Massachusetts. The administration has already invested $1 million to jump-start four proposed wood-burning plants in Russell, Greenfield, Springfield, and Pittsfield as it tries to meet the goal of producing 15 percent of the state’s energy needs from renewable sources by 2020.

State Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles says the administration now wants more information about the possible negative effects of the wood-burning plants. “Difficult questions about biomass have arisen in the past year,’’ Bowles said. “We are asking those hard questions and asking them in a way that no other states have asked them.’’

Bowles said he wants more information about the greenhouse gases the plants emit and how they can be operated while also maintaining forests. Bowles is ordering a six-month study of the issue as the Department of Energy Resources develops new regulations for biomass facilities.

Arial view of proposed Russell (Massachusetts) Biomass Power Plant.

Water will be drawn for cooling and then returned to the adjacent Westfield River (Source: www.russellbiomass.com).

Developers claim that the environmental effects, particularly those on the Westfield River, will be negligible.

Peter Schilling, Chairman of MA / RI TU Council, on behalf of TU, says “not so fast.”

Sept 2009 - update from Peter Schilling: "Russell BioMass Wins This Round - DEP Decision Upholding WMA Permit".

Sent: Fri, Aug 28, 2009 8:18 pm
Subject: Fwd: Russell BioMass Wins This Round - DEP Decision Upholding
WMA Permit

To everyone:

The decision on the water withdrawal permit by the DEP Presiding Officer handling the case was released on August 19, 2009. The brief
note below is from Meg Sheehan, attorney handling the appeal, about what the next steps are. A copy of the decision is attached.

Earlier this month, EPA and MA/DEP issued a draft NPDES permit, which allows the discharge of hot, chemical-laced water into the river. They sought comments responding to the draft permit, and now those comments will be reviewed before the final permit is issued. We responded in detail to that draft NPDES permit, focusing on the failure of EPA to do a thorough analysis of the impact of the discharge on Atlantic salmon.

If anyone wants to see a copy of that commentary, let me know. I'll forward you a copy.

We are nowhere close to finality regarding whether or not this plant will operate. Still grinding through the appeals process for both the state action, and now the federal EPA action.

Meanwhile, the massive Markey-Waxman energy bill, which sped through the House this summer in record time and which contains signficant
incentives for biomass plants such as this one, is being reviewed by the Senate. It is unclear how the bill will fair in that body.

Also please remember the next Council meeting is on September 27, 2009, in West Springfield at the Elks Lodge. Directions to follow in the next week or so.

Regards,

Peter Schilling
Chair
MA / RI TU Council

Notes from Meg Sheehan:

In the water withdrawal case, the Administrative Law Judge upheld the Russell Biomass permit to withdrawal 885,000 gallons per day from the River. We expected he would rule for the company, so no surprise.

The steps are that now the DEP Commissioner has to approve the decision and then issue a "Final Decision" (expected within 30 days I believe, but may be sooner). We have the right to appeal to Superior Court after that, within 30 days.

Attached is the PDF of the decision -- >>click Here


	Updates on the Proposed Biomass Power Site on the Westfield River, Russell, MA. Reported By the Valley Advocate, Dec 31, 2009 Horns to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection for throwing out testimony offered by Piotr Parasiewicz, a highly credentialed expert on rivers, for a hearing on a water withdrawal permit for the proposed Russell Biomass wood-fired power plant. The plant would be sited on the Westfield River, a famous fishing stream that carries the federal designation Wild and Scenic River; the developers wanted permission to draw down as much as 885,000 gallons of water a day to cool the plant. Parasiewicz, who has worked as a researcher at Cornell and UMass and even assisted with the Index Streamflow Report for the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, could not make the hearing but submitted written testimony in advance. But it was not considered because, the state said, his information would deal with pollutants in the water rather than the drawdown per se. Yet Parasiewicz' filing did deal with water volumes, claiming, among other things, that 30 percent of water in the river in August's low flow period is already drawn down by other industries. And environmental attorney Margaret Sheehan said the state law governing water withdrawal permits mandates that water quality and the ability of a river with diminished flow to absorb pollutants be considered. Source: http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=11073) Reported by the Boston Globe, Nov 8, 2009 Mass Rethinking Plans for Wood Burning Power Plants The Patrick administration is rethinking its support of wood-burning power plants, a key element of its long-term strategy to wean the state off fossil fuels. Wood, also known as biomass, has long been part of the state’s portfolio of renewable energy sources, along with solar, wind, and geothermal. But some environmental activists say biomass plants could lead to the clear cutting of forests while pumping more carbon dioxide into the air than coal plants, adding to global warming. That criticism has ramped up recently in Western Massachusetts. The administration has already invested $1 million to jump-start four proposed wood-burning plants in Russell, Greenfield, Springfield, and Pittsfield as it tries to meet the goal of producing 15 percent of the state’s energy needs from renewable sources by 2020. State Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles says the administration now wants more information about the possible negative effects of the wood-burning plants. “Difficult questions about biomass have arisen in the past year,’’ Bowles said. “We are asking those hard questions and asking them in a way that no other states have asked them.’’ Bowles said he wants more information about the greenhouse gases the plants emit and how they can be operated while also maintaining forests. Bowles is ordering a six-month study of the issue as the Department of Energy Resources develops new regulations for biomass facilities. >>Read more at http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/11/08/ma ---- Arial view of proposed Russell (Massachusetts) Biomass Power Plant. Water will be drawn for cooling and then returned to the adjacent Westfield River (Source: www.russellbiomass.com). Developers claim that the environmental effects, particularly those on the Westfield River, will be negligible. Peter Schilling, Chairman of MA / RI TU Council, on behalf of TU, says “not so fast.” Sept 2009 - update from Peter Schilling: "Russell BioMass Wins This Round - DEP Decision Upholding WMA Permit". The Sept 2009 decision is bad news - however there is an appeal process. Read Peter Schilling's more detailed note and view the full decision below. Sent: Fri, Aug 28, 2009 8:18 pm Subject: Fwd: Russell BioMass Wins This Round - DEP Decision Upholding WMA Permit To everyone: The decision on the water withdrawal permit by the DEP Presiding Officer handling the case was released on August 19, 2009. The brief note below is from Meg Sheehan, attorney handling the appeal, about what the next steps are. A copy of the decision is attached. Earlier this month, EPA and MA/DEP issued a draft NPDES permit, which allows the discharge of hot, chemical-laced water into the river. They sought comments responding to the draft permit, and now those comments will be reviewed before the final permit is issued. We responded in detail to that draft NPDES permit, focusing on the failure of EPA to do a thorough analysis of the impact of the discharge on Atlantic salmon. If anyone wants to see a copy of that commentary, let me know. I'll forward you a copy. We are nowhere close to finality regarding whether or not this plant will operate. Still grinding through the appeals process for both the state action, and now the federal EPA action. Meanwhile, the massive Markey-Waxman energy bill, which sped through the House this summer in record time and which contains signficant incentives for biomass plants such as this one, is being reviewed by the Senate. It is unclear how the bill will fair in that body. Also please remember the next Council meeting is on September 27, 2009, in West Springfield at the Elks Lodge. Directions to follow in the next week or so. Regards, Peter Schilling Chair MA / RI TU Council ------------------------------------------------------------- Notes from Meg Sheehan: In the water withdrawal case, the Administrative Law Judge upheld the Russell Biomass permit to withdrawal 885,000 gallons per day from the River. We expected he would rule for the company, so no surprise. The steps are that now the DEP Commissioner has to approve the decision and then issue a "Final Decision" (expected within 30 days I believe, but may be sooner). We have the right to appeal to Superior Court after that, within 30 days. Attached is the PDF of the decision -- >>click Here For more -- http://www.concernedcitizensofrussell.org/ Mass River Alliance Ocean River Institute Berkshire Environmental Action Team