In our search for information on these Biomass Plants we came across the following recent study and thought it would be helpful to our town officials to have as much information as possible when it comes to putting this plant in our downtown area.
Solid fuels (biomass as well as coal) generally contain a considerable amount of ash forming elements, which clearly distinguishes them from liquid and gaseous fossil fuels. Bottom ashes and fly ashes emitted with the flue gas are usually formed during combustion. The fly ash can be divided into coarse fly ashes and aerosols (particles with a diameter <1 μm). These ash fractions may cause both plant internal and emission problems.
Appropriate dust separation devices must be applied to meet current dust emission standards, which is not a problem for medium- and large scale applications since highly efficient filter systems such as baghouse filters and electrostatic precipitators are economically affordable for installations. For small-scale biomass combustion systems, however, no highly efficient and economically sound dust precipitators are available on the market to date, which has led to significant R&D efforts in this field. This is of special importance since many European regions are currently facing severe air quality problems regarding fine particulate matter (especially PM10), and small-scale biomass combustion systems have already been identified as a major emission source together with industry and traffic.
Plant problems caused by ashes mainly include deposit formation, slagging and corrosion. Slagging, e.g. on the grate of a combustion system, may disturb the combustion process and in extreme cases even damage the grate. Deposit formation on boiler walls and tube surfaces reduces the heat transfer and thus the efficiency of combustion units. Severe deposit formation can also lead to the blocking of heat exchanger sections, necessitating unexpected plant shutdowns for deposit removal and boiler cleaning. Furthermore, deposits can be corrosive and may thus reduce the lifetime of the installations. Considerable R&D efforts are being made to find technological solutions for these problems, especially for large-scale combustion units using waste wood or herbaceous biomass fuels.
This paper presents the latest research results on ash and aerosol (fine particulate) formation and behavior. The knowledge of these processes forms the basis for R&D regarding all relevant ash related problems mentioned above, and is therefore essential for the development of measures concerning the reduction of fine particulate emissions as well as concerning the reduction of deposit formation and corrosion problems in biomass furnaces and boilers.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
BIOMASS INCINERATION HAS “UNACCEPTABLE HEALTH RISKS”AND DRIVES UP HEALTH CARE COSTS
I. Leading medical associations and public health advocates oppose biomass incineration and are demanding an end to taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies for these facilities.
American Lung Association
“The Lung Association urges that the legislation not promote the combustion of biomass. Burning biomass could lead to significant increases in emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide and have severe impacts on the health of children, older adults, and people with lung diseases.
http://www.nobiomass.org/Documents/ALA_national_letter.pdf
Massachusetts Medical Society
“Biomass power plants pose an unacceptable risk to the public’s health by increasing air pollution…The burning of biomass releases small particles into the air creating particulate air pollution. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated an association between elevated particulate air pollution levels and adverse health effects and death. Particulate air pollution is associated with increased cardiopulmonary symptoms, asthma attacks, days lost from work due to respiratory disease, emergency room visits, hospitalization rates, and mortality.
“Biomass combustion also releases nitrogen oxides, which help create ozone, a highly reactive oxidant gas. Ozone reacts in the pulmonary airways causing symptoms of chest pain, shortness of breath, cough,
wheeze, increased susceptibility to infection, declines in lung function, increases in asthma attacks, increases in asthma medication use, increased rates of emergency room visits for respiratory disease.
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search8&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=33653
Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition
“Massachusetts has the 4th highest breast cancer rate in the country...Of particular concern to the breast cancer community about this [Springfield] plant is the release of toxic chemicals like dioxin and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s) into the air in communities already experiencing needlessly high rates of breast cancer.”
http://www.springfieldincinerator.info/content_downloads/Mass%20Breast%20Cancer%20Coalition.doc
North Carolina Academy of Family Physicians
“Biomass burning of poultry litter and wood wastes creates emissions of particulate matter that research has shown increase the risk of premature death, asthma, chronic bronchitis, and heart disease. This burning process also creates numerous byproducts, including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds that increase smog and ozone, which are known to increase lung disease and mortality; sulfur dioxides which also contribute to respiratory disease; arsenic which can increase the risk of cancer; mercury which can increase the risk of brain and kidney disease and affect the developing fetus; and dioxins which may increase the risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes mellitus, developmental delays in children, neurotoxicity, and thyroid disease.
“These health effects would increase disability and death in all age groups, but particularly in the most vulnerable—developing fetuses, newborns, children, those with chronic illness, and the elderly. As a result of this increased disability and disease, medical costs in the state will increase.”
http://forums.e‐democracy.org/groups/mn‐politics/files/f/302‐2010‐05
02T165944Z/Final%20Letter%20of%20Concern%20Regarding%20Biomass%20Burning.pdf
Florida Medical Association
“The Florida Medical Association urges state government to adopt policies to minimize the approval and the construction of new incinerators including mass-burn, gasification, plasma, pyrolysis, biomass, refuse derived fuel and other incinerator technologies, and to develop a plan to retire existing outdated incinerators.”
http://floridiansagainstincineratorsindisguise.com/2009/12/21/58/
II. There is no known safe limit for emissions of particulates from biomass incineration and current regulations will not protect the public from the risk from existing and proposed facilities
• PM 2.5, or fine particles, have a diameter that is 2.5 microns or smaller. These particles are released directly from sources such as forest fires and other combustion sources. These particles can remain suspended in the air for a long time because of their small size. With PM 2.5, ever combustion unit – industrial boiler, school bus, truck, lawnmower, fireplace, wood boiler, etc - is a source of fine particulate matter.
http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903
• The U.S. EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, established under the Clean Air Act to provide scientific advice on setting air quality standards, states “there is clear and convincing scientific evidence that significant adverse human-health effects occur in response to short-term and chronic particulate matter exposures at and below 15 μg/m3, the level of the current annual PM2.5 standard.” (CASAC 2006).
http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac-ltr-06-003.pdf
• Air pollution affects the growth of lung function during the period of rapid lung development
between the ages of 10 and 18 years. (Gauderman et al., 2007)
• Children’s Health study (CHS), which began in Southern California in 1993, included more than 6000 public school children. Many research papers emerging from this study have produced findings showing that exposure to air pollution in the region has resulted in increased school absences, asthma exacerbation, and new-onset asthma. (Kunzli et al. 2003)
• Data from the American Cancer Society (ACS) cohort estimated that for each 10-μg/m3 increase in annual average exposure to PM2.5, long-term all-cause, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality were increased by approximately 4%, 6%, and 8%, respectively. The relationship between PM2.5 and adverse health effects was linear and without a discernible lower "safe" threshold.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/109/21/2655
• Data from all North American studies demonstrate that this curve is without a discernible threshold below which PM concentrations pose no health risk to the general population.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=58003
• Moreover, because a number of studies have demonstrated associations between particulate air pollution and adverse cardiovascular effects even when levels of ambient PM2.5 were within current standards, even more stringent standards for PM2.5 should be strongly considered by the EPA.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/109/21/
Would seem that there is an abundance of information of the health risks associated with breathing wood smoke available for those wishing to educate themselves to the risks which have been ongoing for many years.
American Lung Association
“The Lung Association urges that the legislation not promote the combustion of biomass. Burning biomass could lead to significant increases in emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide and have severe impacts on the health of children, older adults, and people with lung diseases.
http://www.nobiomass.org/Documents/ALA_national_letter.pdf
Massachusetts Medical Society
“Biomass power plants pose an unacceptable risk to the public’s health by increasing air pollution…The burning of biomass releases small particles into the air creating particulate air pollution. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated an association between elevated particulate air pollution levels and adverse health effects and death. Particulate air pollution is associated with increased cardiopulmonary symptoms, asthma attacks, days lost from work due to respiratory disease, emergency room visits, hospitalization rates, and mortality.
“Biomass combustion also releases nitrogen oxides, which help create ozone, a highly reactive oxidant gas. Ozone reacts in the pulmonary airways causing symptoms of chest pain, shortness of breath, cough,
wheeze, increased susceptibility to infection, declines in lung function, increases in asthma attacks, increases in asthma medication use, increased rates of emergency room visits for respiratory disease.
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search8&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=33653
Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition
“Massachusetts has the 4th highest breast cancer rate in the country...Of particular concern to the breast cancer community about this [Springfield] plant is the release of toxic chemicals like dioxin and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s) into the air in communities already experiencing needlessly high rates of breast cancer.”
http://www.springfieldincinerator.info/content_downloads/Mass%20Breast%20Cancer%20Coalition.doc
North Carolina Academy of Family Physicians
“Biomass burning of poultry litter and wood wastes creates emissions of particulate matter that research has shown increase the risk of premature death, asthma, chronic bronchitis, and heart disease. This burning process also creates numerous byproducts, including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds that increase smog and ozone, which are known to increase lung disease and mortality; sulfur dioxides which also contribute to respiratory disease; arsenic which can increase the risk of cancer; mercury which can increase the risk of brain and kidney disease and affect the developing fetus; and dioxins which may increase the risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes mellitus, developmental delays in children, neurotoxicity, and thyroid disease.
“These health effects would increase disability and death in all age groups, but particularly in the most vulnerable—developing fetuses, newborns, children, those with chronic illness, and the elderly. As a result of this increased disability and disease, medical costs in the state will increase.”
http://forums.e‐democracy.org/groups/mn‐politics/files/f/302‐2010‐05
02T165944Z/Final%20Letter%20of%20Concern%20Regarding%20Biomass%20Burning.pdf
Florida Medical Association
“The Florida Medical Association urges state government to adopt policies to minimize the approval and the construction of new incinerators including mass-burn, gasification, plasma, pyrolysis, biomass, refuse derived fuel and other incinerator technologies, and to develop a plan to retire existing outdated incinerators.”
http://floridiansagainstincineratorsindisguise.com/2009/12/21/58/
II. There is no known safe limit for emissions of particulates from biomass incineration and current regulations will not protect the public from the risk from existing and proposed facilities
• PM 2.5, or fine particles, have a diameter that is 2.5 microns or smaller. These particles are released directly from sources such as forest fires and other combustion sources. These particles can remain suspended in the air for a long time because of their small size. With PM 2.5, ever combustion unit – industrial boiler, school bus, truck, lawnmower, fireplace, wood boiler, etc - is a source of fine particulate matter.
http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903
• The U.S. EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, established under the Clean Air Act to provide scientific advice on setting air quality standards, states “there is clear and convincing scientific evidence that significant adverse human-health effects occur in response to short-term and chronic particulate matter exposures at and below 15 μg/m3, the level of the current annual PM2.5 standard.” (CASAC 2006).
http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac-ltr-06-003.pdf
• Air pollution affects the growth of lung function during the period of rapid lung development
between the ages of 10 and 18 years. (Gauderman et al., 2007)
• Children’s Health study (CHS), which began in Southern California in 1993, included more than 6000 public school children. Many research papers emerging from this study have produced findings showing that exposure to air pollution in the region has resulted in increased school absences, asthma exacerbation, and new-onset asthma. (Kunzli et al. 2003)
• Data from the American Cancer Society (ACS) cohort estimated that for each 10-μg/m3 increase in annual average exposure to PM2.5, long-term all-cause, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality were increased by approximately 4%, 6%, and 8%, respectively. The relationship between PM2.5 and adverse health effects was linear and without a discernible lower "safe" threshold.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/109/21/2655
• Data from all North American studies demonstrate that this curve is without a discernible threshold below which PM concentrations pose no health risk to the general population.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=58003
• Moreover, because a number of studies have demonstrated associations between particulate air pollution and adverse cardiovascular effects even when levels of ambient PM2.5 were within current standards, even more stringent standards for PM2.5 should be strongly considered by the EPA.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/109/21/
Would seem that there is an abundance of information of the health risks associated with breathing wood smoke available for those wishing to educate themselves to the risks which have been ongoing for many years.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Open Letter to Clean Power
Dear Mr. Gabler -
Apparently, our Town Hall did not inform you that we have a STRICT ordinance(s) that does not allow your facility ANY WHERE in this town.
J. INDUSTRIAL USES
2. Sawmill operations in structures, forest products manufacture.
(only permissible in agriculture district)
4. To prohibit in all districts, the construction, operation or maintenance of facilities designed to process, recycle, incinerate, store, treat, transport or dispose of solid waste as defined by RSA 149-M:1 XIX, refuse as defined by RSA 149-M:1 XVII-a, putrescible materials as defined by RSA 149-M:1 XVI, sludge from a waste treatment works, septic sewerage, or ash resulting from the incineration of the foregoing other than at facility owned and operated by the Town of Winchester. Storage of household and commercial waste generated on site pending removal to a waste disposal facility and recycling of waste produced on site or collected by a volunteer organization is permitted.
(not permitted in any district)
Despite what you were told - You should have been properly informed that in order for your facility to be built you will be required to have the town vote out this ordinance in March. It was tried two years ago and failed!
Respectfully,
Concerned Citizens of Winchester
PS: Don't go away mad, just go away!
Apparently, our Town Hall did not inform you that we have a STRICT ordinance(s) that does not allow your facility ANY WHERE in this town.
J. INDUSTRIAL USES
2. Sawmill operations in structures, forest products manufacture.
(only permissible in agriculture district)
4. To prohibit in all districts, the construction, operation or maintenance of facilities designed to process, recycle, incinerate, store, treat, transport or dispose of solid waste as defined by RSA 149-M:1 XIX, refuse as defined by RSA 149-M:1 XVII-a, putrescible materials as defined by RSA 149-M:1 XVI, sludge from a waste treatment works, septic sewerage, or ash resulting from the incineration of the foregoing other than at facility owned and operated by the Town of Winchester. Storage of household and commercial waste generated on site pending removal to a waste disposal facility and recycling of waste produced on site or collected by a volunteer organization is permitted.
(not permitted in any district)
Despite what you were told - You should have been properly informed that in order for your facility to be built you will be required to have the town vote out this ordinance in March. It was tried two years ago and failed!
Respectfully,
Concerned Citizens of Winchester
PS: Don't go away mad, just go away!
Sunday, August 22, 2010
American Power Act: Request to Eliminate Incentives for Biomass Incinerators
Commercial biomass burning for electricity is not “carbon neutral”
A variety of historic, scientific and regulatory assumptions that are now proven false have resulted in unwarranted favorable treatment for biomass incinerators that generate electricity. These incinerators have qualified as “renewable energy generating sources” on the false assumption that their greenhouse gas emissions are “carbon neutral.” Simply put, burning wood is not carbon neutral because trees cannot grow back fast enough to absorb all the greenhouse gases emitted from burning them in a reasonable time frame. The EPA has acknowledged that the assumption that biomass is carbon neutral may no longer be valid. The agency’s May 14, 2010 final rule, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule” denied the industry’s request for an exemption from the rule.2 A recent letter signed by 90 of the nation’s top
scientists was delivered to key policymakers on May 25th, and demanded an end to “cooking the books” on biomass, and proper and full accounting of emissions.
http://www.nobiomassburning.org/docs/Tax_Letter_FINAL.pdf
Opposition in Massachusetts has spurred a ballot question to remove biomass from the state Renewable Portfolio Standard.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/90-scientists-urge-congress-not-to-cook-the-books-in-co2-accounting-for-biofuels-other-bioenergysources-
94741714.html
Not only does biomass burning threaten the public health and the environment, it eviscerates purported emissions reductions under the Act.
more; http://www.nobiomassburning.org/docs/kgl.pdf
A variety of historic, scientific and regulatory assumptions that are now proven false have resulted in unwarranted favorable treatment for biomass incinerators that generate electricity. These incinerators have qualified as “renewable energy generating sources” on the false assumption that their greenhouse gas emissions are “carbon neutral.” Simply put, burning wood is not carbon neutral because trees cannot grow back fast enough to absorb all the greenhouse gases emitted from burning them in a reasonable time frame. The EPA has acknowledged that the assumption that biomass is carbon neutral may no longer be valid. The agency’s May 14, 2010 final rule, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule” denied the industry’s request for an exemption from the rule.2 A recent letter signed by 90 of the nation’s top
scientists was delivered to key policymakers on May 25th, and demanded an end to “cooking the books” on biomass, and proper and full accounting of emissions.
Letter to the Senate Finance Committee opposing tax credit extenders for biomass burning signed by seventy-one organizations around the country
http://www.nobiomassburning.org/docs/Tax_Letter_FINAL.pdf
Opposition in Massachusetts has spurred a ballot question to remove biomass from the state Renewable Portfolio Standard.
www.stopspewingcarbon.org ( see Pages 420-423 )
90 scientists urge congress not to ‘cook the books in CO2 accounting for biofuels and other bioenergy sources. PR News. May 25 2010
94741714.html
Not only does biomass burning threaten the public health and the environment, it eviscerates purported emissions reductions under the Act.
more; http://www.nobiomassburning.org/docs/kgl.pdf
Friday, August 20, 2010
Biomass Plant Propaganda Misleads .. Some FACTS you should know.
Biomass incinerators are rarely, if ever, factually represented by the many sales pitches we see issued by the energy industry sector that promotes them. To the point, biomass incineration is not clean and green, sustainable and renewable, carbon neutral and cost effective, or environmentally friendly and ecologically sound. It is quite the opposite of these beautiful and alluring marketing slogans. Biomass incineration is in reality quite polluting, unsustainable to the extreme and, in some cases, less environmentally friendly than coal burning plants.
Remember the old-fashioned hospital incinerator that nobody ever wanted to live downwind from. Who would want mercury vapors, and the many other highly toxic aerosols, wafting through their neighborhood? Well, then, why would a community want a biomass incinerator sited within winds’ reach of their schools, subdivisions and businesses. The post incineration output of these biomass plants can be much worse than a hospital’s depending on what is being incinerated.
Let’s not forget the golden rule of energy production: “Garbage in; garbage out.” Ultimately the permitting process for these incinerators often allows for the burning of various types of refuse and other feedstock, which will necessarily degrade air quality. A close look at any state air permit application for these biomass plants will reveal the mix of carcinogens, toxins, pollutants, contaminants and poisons that is really quite alarming.
One can only imagine the harmful effects to human and animal life that these pollutants will cause in those unfortunate cities, towns and counties that have succumbed to energy industry forces, which routinely foist these schemes on an uninformed public all in order to reap the benefits of the many government subsidies they'll receive. Money always talks sweetly.
What follows is a quote from a group of healthcare professionals concerned about the lasting effects emissions from these plants has on the general public. They are referring to an existing Biomass plant in Florida; but the same goes for all Biomass plants all over the country. Be very wary of what you're not being told.
“As you know full well, biomass incinerators of this type will produce extraordinary amounts of air pollution to include dioxin, one of the most toxic and carcinogenic organic chemicals released into the environment by industry. In addition, this incinerator will be 0.3 tons (according to the ADAGE permit application submitted to DEP) shy of being a major source of a particular hazardous air pollutant (hydrogen chloride) according to the FL DEP’s own regulatory guidance concerning the 10 ton threshold for any single air pollutant. This incinerator will also significantly contribute to the total particulate matter volume which already plagues much of North Florida. We are compelled to point out that particulate matter (PM) concentration directly correlates with a whole host of upper respiratory ailments to include sinusitis, rhinitis, pharyngitis, laryngitis, as well as the common cold. More serious respiratory diseases such as lung cancer, emphysema, pneumonia, tuberculosis, pulmonary edema, sarcoidosis, pleurisy and adult respiratory distress syndrome are all greatly aggravated by the various pollutants emitted from biomass plants. Chronic respiratory conditions such as COPD, CREST, asthma, bronchitis, reactive airway disease, as well as numerous inhalant allergies will likewise see an increase wherever these irritants exist above certain thresholds. Likewise, illnesses such as influenza and its many seasonal variants will always be exacerbated when the ambient air is fouled by these particulates and chemical emissions.”
Also think about this, the vast quantities of "waste heat" generated from burning a ton-a-minute of wood will be disposed of by a process called "wet cooling" which will essentially boil off and evaporate water into the local ground-level air. The facility will need many thousands of gallons of water every day, and close to a million gallons of water will be used daily during the hot summer months.Most of the water being vaporized into our air will come from installing a new pipeline and pumping partially-treated sewage wastewater through the town from Winchester's Waste Water Treatment Control Plant. The sewage treatment process is considered to provide "partial treatment" because it only removes gross contaminants (called secondary biological treatment) and is not designed to, nor able to remove most toxic chemicals, especially over-the-
counter drugs, personal care products, and synthetic pollutants like pesticides. Many of the pharmaceuticals used daily by citizens in Winchester,( antibiotics, heart medications, artificial sweeteners, etc.) and most of the other compounds on an EPA list of over 87,000 suspected Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDCs) can pass right through the sewage treatment process. In fact, the town is not even required to monitor for these dangerous pollutants. EDCs have been shown by extensive scientific research to cause biological abnormalities in aquatic life, such as birth defects, chromosomal damage, reproductive abnormalities, inter-sex development (females with sperm, males with eggs), and a host of other unnatural and unpleasant anomalies.
Instead of discharging this contaminated sewage effluent to the Ashuelot River, where it is likely having an adverse impact on aquatic life, Winchester will be giving approval to the developer to pump this toxic stew through the center of town to be boiled away in his super-inefficient power plant. Estimates of close to 3/4 of a million gallons of contaminated sewage water will be entering the ground-level air of Winchester and surrounding towns every day! Anything and everything dumped down a drain or flushed down a toilet will potentially be aerosolized for the population to inhale. No studies were done to determine how much of the toxic chemicals in the sewage water will be deposited on the citizens who breathe the air. No testing was
done for EDCs to calculate how much exposure the local population will be subjected to. Modern pharmaceuticals are developed and designed to have important biological effects at extremely low doses. Many Endocrine Disrupters have documented biological effects at concentrations as low as a few parts per trillion. None of the thousands of suspect compounds have been studied to determine what damage they cause in various combinations, so-called synergistic effects. It is important to understand that this contaminant plume will not be dispersed through a 250 foot high incinerator smoke stack, but will instead be spewed out
essentially at ground level. Do you really want your children or yourself for that matter, breathing in this toxic concoction every day for the rest of your lives?
In order to meet state water re-use standards, the partially-treated sewage water will have to receive additional treatment at the incinerator to reduce the "food value" (called biochemical oxygen demand or BOD) of the leftover sewage particles (referred to as total suspended solids or TSS). However, this additional treatment process is not designed to, and will not remove the synthetic chemicals, drugs, personal care product residues, pharmaceuticals, and other EDCs in the sewage water. Additional chemicals will then be added to the cooling water such as slime-control chemicals, chlorine disinfectants, corrosion inhibitors, and process control chemicals. Extensive monitoring of existing cooling towers at other power plants have shown that they can cause bacteria and other micro-organisms, dissolved minerals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), chlorination by-products, chemical residues used for water treatment, slime control chemicals, corrosion inhibitor residues, volatile process control lubricants, and many other toxic materials to be
discharged to the local ground-level air. A certain percentage of this discharge is composed of small droplets called "drift" that can contain concentrated toxin levels (chemical fog) which will either be inhaled or deposited in a fall-out zone close to the facility. You can bet that none of this will be disclosed to the public by the applicant during the permitting process.
Along with the impacts on our forests and water and on our neighbors to the North, East, South and West, is Biomass a good thing for our town? We're still studying up on this stuff and just thought we'd pass along the information we have so that the good citizens of Winchester can form their own opinions and make their own decisions on whether this is a good thing for Winchester or for just those few who will benefit the most from putting this plant in our town..
Remember the old-fashioned hospital incinerator that nobody ever wanted to live downwind from. Who would want mercury vapors, and the many other highly toxic aerosols, wafting through their neighborhood? Well, then, why would a community want a biomass incinerator sited within winds’ reach of their schools, subdivisions and businesses. The post incineration output of these biomass plants can be much worse than a hospital’s depending on what is being incinerated.
Let’s not forget the golden rule of energy production: “Garbage in; garbage out.” Ultimately the permitting process for these incinerators often allows for the burning of various types of refuse and other feedstock, which will necessarily degrade air quality. A close look at any state air permit application for these biomass plants will reveal the mix of carcinogens, toxins, pollutants, contaminants and poisons that is really quite alarming.
As we have evaluated the emission estimates of various pollutants, which have been submitted by the very biomass companies themselves, we wonder how they make the leap across the chasm to such environmentally attractive sound bites. Let’s be clear about the assortment and type of contaminants which will inevitably show up in the surrounding air of these biomass plants. As follows:
(1) Dioxins and Furans
(2) Particulate Matter – 10.0, 2.5 and 1.0 microns
(3) Hydrogen Chloride
(4) Nitrogen Dioxide
(5) Carbon Monoxide
(6) Hydrogen Sulfide
(7) Sulfur Dioxide
(8) Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4)
(9) Mercury, Lead and Arsenic
(10) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s) such as benzene, toluene and naphthalene
What follows is a quote from a group of healthcare professionals concerned about the lasting effects emissions from these plants has on the general public. They are referring to an existing Biomass plant in Florida; but the same goes for all Biomass plants all over the country. Be very wary of what you're not being told.
“As you know full well, biomass incinerators of this type will produce extraordinary amounts of air pollution to include dioxin, one of the most toxic and carcinogenic organic chemicals released into the environment by industry. In addition, this incinerator will be 0.3 tons (according to the ADAGE permit application submitted to DEP) shy of being a major source of a particular hazardous air pollutant (hydrogen chloride) according to the FL DEP’s own regulatory guidance concerning the 10 ton threshold for any single air pollutant. This incinerator will also significantly contribute to the total particulate matter volume which already plagues much of North Florida. We are compelled to point out that particulate matter (PM) concentration directly correlates with a whole host of upper respiratory ailments to include sinusitis, rhinitis, pharyngitis, laryngitis, as well as the common cold. More serious respiratory diseases such as lung cancer, emphysema, pneumonia, tuberculosis, pulmonary edema, sarcoidosis, pleurisy and adult respiratory distress syndrome are all greatly aggravated by the various pollutants emitted from biomass plants. Chronic respiratory conditions such as COPD, CREST, asthma, bronchitis, reactive airway disease, as well as numerous inhalant allergies will likewise see an increase wherever these irritants exist above certain thresholds. Likewise, illnesses such as influenza and its many seasonal variants will always be exacerbated when the ambient air is fouled by these particulates and chemical emissions.”
The profound medical repercussions and health impacts of this form of incineration and crude energy production cannot be understated. Medical organizations from around the country have been weighing in on this matter for as long as biomass marketeers have been submitting their sales literature to the many small, economically depressed communities that are vulnerable to such ill-conceived proposals. The twenty to thirty long-term jobs, which are created by these biomass propositions, will be taken by many who will inevitably experience dangerous levels of exposure to the aforementioned chemicals. Therefore, they will suffer adverse health conditions, which will then contribute to the local medical burden, as well as significantly increase the health care costs associated with lifelong remediation.
In an age when the nation is moving toward more enlightened energy platforms concerning production, dissemination and utilization, it is quite anachronistic that some would have us go back to the Stone Age. Burning trees and the like is, after all, what was done before there was solar, wind, oil and gas, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric power. Why in the world, with a global population approaching 7 billion, would we want to go back to energy sources that are as primitive as they are downright dirty?
counter drugs, personal care products, and synthetic pollutants like pesticides. Many of the pharmaceuticals used daily by citizens in Winchester,( antibiotics, heart medications, artificial sweeteners, etc.) and most of the other compounds on an EPA list of over 87,000 suspected Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDCs) can pass right through the sewage treatment process. In fact, the town is not even required to monitor for these dangerous pollutants. EDCs have been shown by extensive scientific research to cause biological abnormalities in aquatic life, such as birth defects, chromosomal damage, reproductive abnormalities, inter-sex development (females with sperm, males with eggs), and a host of other unnatural and unpleasant anomalies.
Instead of discharging this contaminated sewage effluent to the Ashuelot River, where it is likely having an adverse impact on aquatic life, Winchester will be giving approval to the developer to pump this toxic stew through the center of town to be boiled away in his super-inefficient power plant. Estimates of close to 3/4 of a million gallons of contaminated sewage water will be entering the ground-level air of Winchester and surrounding towns every day! Anything and everything dumped down a drain or flushed down a toilet will potentially be aerosolized for the population to inhale. No studies were done to determine how much of the toxic chemicals in the sewage water will be deposited on the citizens who breathe the air. No testing was
done for EDCs to calculate how much exposure the local population will be subjected to. Modern pharmaceuticals are developed and designed to have important biological effects at extremely low doses. Many Endocrine Disrupters have documented biological effects at concentrations as low as a few parts per trillion. None of the thousands of suspect compounds have been studied to determine what damage they cause in various combinations, so-called synergistic effects. It is important to understand that this contaminant plume will not be dispersed through a 250 foot high incinerator smoke stack, but will instead be spewed out
essentially at ground level. Do you really want your children or yourself for that matter, breathing in this toxic concoction every day for the rest of your lives?
In order to meet state water re-use standards, the partially-treated sewage water will have to receive additional treatment at the incinerator to reduce the "food value" (called biochemical oxygen demand or BOD) of the leftover sewage particles (referred to as total suspended solids or TSS). However, this additional treatment process is not designed to, and will not remove the synthetic chemicals, drugs, personal care product residues, pharmaceuticals, and other EDCs in the sewage water. Additional chemicals will then be added to the cooling water such as slime-control chemicals, chlorine disinfectants, corrosion inhibitors, and process control chemicals. Extensive monitoring of existing cooling towers at other power plants have shown that they can cause bacteria and other micro-organisms, dissolved minerals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), chlorination by-products, chemical residues used for water treatment, slime control chemicals, corrosion inhibitor residues, volatile process control lubricants, and many other toxic materials to be
discharged to the local ground-level air. A certain percentage of this discharge is composed of small droplets called "drift" that can contain concentrated toxin levels (chemical fog) which will either be inhaled or deposited in a fall-out zone close to the facility. You can bet that none of this will be disclosed to the public by the applicant during the permitting process.
Along with the impacts on our forests and water and on our neighbors to the North, East, South and West, is Biomass a good thing for our town? We're still studying up on this stuff and just thought we'd pass along the information we have so that the good citizens of Winchester can form their own opinions and make their own decisions on whether this is a good thing for Winchester or for just those few who will benefit the most from putting this plant in our town..
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Biomass plan moves ahead
Guess it doesn't matter much to anyone how the good people of Winchester feel. In case you missed the article in tonight's paper....
Concord-based Clean Power Development LLC is moving forward with plans to build a wood-fueled biomass power plant near Route 119 in Winchester.
Winchester residents will have a chance next week to hear more about the proposed 20-megawatt power plant during a public information session.
Clean Power Development announced an interest in building a plant in Winchester in 2008.
Since then, company officials have focused on building a 29-megawatt plant in Berlin, said Project Manager Bill Gabler at Wednesday’s selectmen’s meeting.
Last month, the company inked a deal with Gestamp Biomass, a division of a Spanish energy corporation, that provided it with the money to begin moving ahead with the Winchester project, Gabler said.
Officials say they don’t know how much the plant will cost.
Company officials hope to begin work on the plant, which would burn wood chips to generate energy, by the end of the year, Gabler said.
Company officials plan to buy about 35 acres south of downtown for the plant, which has been scaled back since it was initially proposed as a 40-megawatt plant.
Testing by the state environmental department showed that the nearby Ashuelot River, which would be used to help cool the plant, couldn’t support such a large plant, Gabler said.
At Wednesday’s selectmen’s meeting, Gabler asked selectmen what role they want the town to have in the permitting process.
Because of its size, the project can either go through the town planning board’s site plan review process or a permitting process by the N.H. Department of Environmental Services’ Energy Site Evaluation Committee, Gabler told the five selectmen and about 30 residents.
According to state regulations, plants that produce 5 megawatts or less have to go to the town and those that produce 30 megawatts or more go through the state committee.
At 20 megawatts, the proposed Winchester plant falls in between, so the project would only go to the state if town or company officials petition for that.
Clean Power Development officials would like the project to go to the town’s planning board because that course would be faster, cheaper and would allow the company to begin building a relationship with the community, Gabler said.
Selectman Gustave A. Ruth moved that the board agree to decide on which direction to send the company at next week’s meeting, but without a second from other board members, it never went to a vote.
“I get the feeling that most people in this room would like to have local control, not leave it up to (state officials in) Concord to decide what happens here in Winchester,” Ruth said.
But some board members said they wanted to hear more about the proposed project before they make that call.
“I’m getting the sense that people want to know more about this,” said Selectman Roberta Fraser. “It has been two years since we heard anything.”The board voted to request that Gabler host a public information session about the project next Wednesday following the selectmen’s meeting. It is unclear whether the board will make a final decision next week.
The public information session is scheduled for Aug. 18, immediately following the selectmen’s meeting, which starts at 7 p.m. It will be held at the town hall.
Concord-based Clean Power Development LLC is moving forward with plans to build a wood-fueled biomass power plant near Route 119 in Winchester.
Winchester residents will have a chance next week to hear more about the proposed 20-megawatt power plant during a public information session.
Clean Power Development announced an interest in building a plant in Winchester in 2008.
Since then, company officials have focused on building a 29-megawatt plant in Berlin, said Project Manager Bill Gabler at Wednesday’s selectmen’s meeting.
Last month, the company inked a deal with Gestamp Biomass, a division of a Spanish energy corporation, that provided it with the money to begin moving ahead with the Winchester project, Gabler said.
Officials say they don’t know how much the plant will cost.
Company officials hope to begin work on the plant, which would burn wood chips to generate energy, by the end of the year, Gabler said.
Company officials plan to buy about 35 acres south of downtown for the plant, which has been scaled back since it was initially proposed as a 40-megawatt plant.
Testing by the state environmental department showed that the nearby Ashuelot River, which would be used to help cool the plant, couldn’t support such a large plant, Gabler said.
At Wednesday’s selectmen’s meeting, Gabler asked selectmen what role they want the town to have in the permitting process.
Because of its size, the project can either go through the town planning board’s site plan review process or a permitting process by the N.H. Department of Environmental Services’ Energy Site Evaluation Committee, Gabler told the five selectmen and about 30 residents.
According to state regulations, plants that produce 5 megawatts or less have to go to the town and those that produce 30 megawatts or more go through the state committee.
At 20 megawatts, the proposed Winchester plant falls in between, so the project would only go to the state if town or company officials petition for that.
Clean Power Development officials would like the project to go to the town’s planning board because that course would be faster, cheaper and would allow the company to begin building a relationship with the community, Gabler said.
Selectman Gustave A. Ruth moved that the board agree to decide on which direction to send the company at next week’s meeting, but without a second from other board members, it never went to a vote.
“I get the feeling that most people in this room would like to have local control, not leave it up to (state officials in) Concord to decide what happens here in Winchester,” Ruth said.
But some board members said they wanted to hear more about the proposed project before they make that call.
“I’m getting the sense that people want to know more about this,” said Selectman Roberta Fraser. “It has been two years since we heard anything.”The board voted to request that Gabler host a public information session about the project next Wednesday following the selectmen’s meeting. It is unclear whether the board will make a final decision next week.
The public information session is scheduled for Aug. 18, immediately following the selectmen’s meeting, which starts at 7 p.m. It will be held at the town hall.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
ELM Center Seeks Volunteers
We've been asked to spread the word;
The ELM is currently looking for volunteers to coach soccer. We are hoping to fill the positions before a parents meeting August 23. Interested parties should contact the ELM as soon as possible.
The ELM is currently looking for volunteers to coach soccer. We are hoping to fill the positions before a parents meeting August 23. Interested parties should contact the ELM as soon as possible.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Important Meeting .. Is This Good for Winchester?
Clean Power Development (CPD) is proposing a wood burning power plant for Winchester (across Route 119 from the town’s Sewer Plant). They plan to go before the Board of Selectman on Wednesday, August 11 to give a presentation. Two years ago, Manager, Bill Gabler, came before the selectman with a preliminary proposal.
We recommend that everyone attend to judge for themselves!
A recent magazine article in Wood Bioenergy (3 rd Quarter 2010), writes that a study was conducted by the State of Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. A quote from this article states, “…the study also accurately stated that biomass burning releases more CO2 than oil, coal or natural gas per unit of energy , anti-biomass groups and sadly many mainstream news outlets have latched on to that one small fact in the report to loudly proclaim: ‘Biomass – It’s Worse Than Coal! ’…”
The article continues on to explain the benefits of the CO2 on the environment, “...The Manomet report says that burning biomass results in an initial ‘carbon debt’ from CO2 releases, but over time, as the replanted forest continues to grow, a ‘carbon dividend’ is created that can actually lower greenhouse gases once the initial carbon debt is repaid over time through forest growth – something fossil fuels can never do…” The article does not state how long a period of time this would take, but that it is possible compared to the other energy sources that would fail to accomplish this task.
A study that EOEEA conducted states that if the land were clear-cut to harvest timber for the biomass (which is NOT a common practice( in MA), it would take 100 years for the forest to renew the nutrients lost. Their major concern is the soil & water damage, “… Biomass harvesting will likely cause increased movement of harvesting equipment across the stand. This greater traffic may cause compaction of soils, which can lead to overland flow of water and the movement of sediment and nutrients into streams. Careful layout and construction of roads, and use of slash to protect roadbeds are important practices to reduce compaction… “
We ask that you research both sides and come to the meeting prepared with knowledge and your questions.
We recommend that everyone attend to judge for themselves!
A recent magazine article in Wood Bioenergy (3 rd Quarter 2010), writes that a study was conducted by the State of Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. A quote from this article states, “…the study also accurately stated that biomass burning releases more CO2 than oil, coal or natural gas per unit of energy , anti-biomass groups and sadly many mainstream news outlets have latched on to that one small fact in the report to loudly proclaim: ‘Biomass – It’s Worse Than Coal! ’…”
The article continues on to explain the benefits of the CO2 on the environment, “...The Manomet report says that burning biomass results in an initial ‘carbon debt’ from CO2 releases, but over time, as the replanted forest continues to grow, a ‘carbon dividend’ is created that can actually lower greenhouse gases once the initial carbon debt is repaid over time through forest growth – something fossil fuels can never do…” The article does not state how long a period of time this would take, but that it is possible compared to the other energy sources that would fail to accomplish this task.
A study that EOEEA conducted states that if the land were clear-cut to harvest timber for the biomass (which is NOT a common practice( in MA), it would take 100 years for the forest to renew the nutrients lost. Their major concern is the soil & water damage, “… Biomass harvesting will likely cause increased movement of harvesting equipment across the stand. This greater traffic may cause compaction of soils, which can lead to overland flow of water and the movement of sediment and nutrients into streams. Careful layout and construction of roads, and use of slash to protect roadbeds are important practices to reduce compaction… “
We ask that you research both sides and come to the meeting prepared with knowledge and your questions.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Riddle Me This Part Three
When is a serious safety hazard not a hazard? Can we all say DYSFUNCTIONAL .....
Taken verbatim from Wednesday's BOS meeting;
Selectman Ruth would like to alert the Board to problems over at the tannery. Leroy is very concerned about liability issues. Selectman Ruth said, “There are holes where the old tanks were. Some depths of these tanks were about 12 feet. If someone falls in they won’t be able to get out. It isn’t fenced in any more. These are some pictures I took of where the leather factory was. These are different areas. These walls are approximately 12 feet high, and there is no way of getting out of it if you fall in. There are no ladders or access to the surface.” Selectman Sepe said, “If Leroy is concerned about it why isn’t he here speaking to us.” Gus said, ”These are my concerns. Leroy is concerned about the buildings. Selectman Fraser asks ”Did Leroy bring this to your attention?” Selectman Ruth said “No, somebody else had brought it to my attention because it was found that turtles are trapped in there now. Snapping turtles, Wood turtles, and Painted turtles are trapped inside these. Selectman Sepe clarified that this is not a secured property. Selectman Ruth said “First of all the turtles need to be removed before winter, or they will die in there. The water is about 2 feet deep. I think we should do something. Right now I have 2 people that are willing to help, one is a licensed trapper and the other is an individual from town who is willing to go down there and trap the turtles and take them out. Right now we have 2 feet of water in there, and I would like to get the Fire Department or someone with a portable pump to pump the water out.” Chairman Tedford suggests demolishing one wall. Selectman Ruth said, ”The holding tanks are 12 feet below the surface, and they will fill up again.” The Board is concerned that the tanks are 12 feet deep, and if someone falls in there is no way of getting up and out of these. Selectman Ruth said “Right now the bottom of them is probably water level, in the spring and the fall it’s going to be above.” Selectman Fraser asks, ”Now at one point were they fenced off ? Or has it always been this way?” Selectman Ruth said, “There was a fence around the whole property. But, the fence has been torn down. They are pulling some fence off where the sewer plant is. That whole fence maybe can be used over there until possible we sell it. The other thing that should be done is the brush and the debris around the wholes should be cleared. Chairman Tedford proposes boring some holes in it and letting it drain. Selectman Ruth said, “The bottom of it is below the water table. Especially in the spring, winter and the fall. Chairman Tedford said” Take a piece of equipment and knock a wall out and let it run in the ground. All it’s got to be is rainwater. You said there is snapping turtles in there?” Selectman Ruth said,” I think you have to go out there and take a look at it.” Chairman Tedford asked how turtles got in there. Selectman Ruth said “ The brush has grown up around the edge of the tank foundations, the turtles have crawled up and over, fallen in and can’t get out. I’m more concerned about a kid falling in and can’t get out. Selectman Ruth explains the pictures he passed around. Selectman Ruth said” I seriously think we have a serious liability problem there. Selectman Tedford asks, “How long has that been like that? 30 years, 20 years 15 years now all of a sudden it is a hazard?” Chairman Ruth said, ”It’s always been a hazard.” Selectman Tedford asks ”Why haven’t the previous boards addresses these issues then?” Selectman Ruth said “You want to make it a hazard when somebody dies in there?” Selectman Fraser said, “ I’ve never been aware of it. So, what do you think we can do?” Selectman Ruth said, “First of all I’d like to get the turtles out and I think we should clear the brush away from the edge of it and put a fence up around them. There are 3 places like that down there. It would take 300-400 yards of material to fence it in. Selectman Tedford said “Before doing anything make sure that Brownfield and everyone else is thru with that property. There was a big 1000-gallon tank up there that somebody demolished years and took away. These tanks have been there ever since the tannery closed now all of a sudden it is a hazard? Why didn’t they address it years ago?” Selectman Ruth said, “ I think they should have.” Selectman Tedford said ”It seems funny now it’s all hazard today and it wasn’t 10 years ago, 8 years ago, 7 years ago. Selectman Ruth said, “ You can’t have an in ground swimming pool that deep and not put a fence around it. You are required by law to have a fence. Selectman Tedford said, “That property used to be fenced in. So, we need to do more research on it, instead of talking about it all night.” Selectman Ruth said, “I would like something to happen very soon.” Selectman Tedford said “Maybe you could research it for the Board.” Selectman Ruth said, “I’ve done enough research on it, and it is a hazard.” Selectman Fraser said, “So we need to put the fence back up.” Selectman Ruth said “ I think we should fence around each individual unit, rather than fence the whole property like they have before.” Selectman Tedford said, ” I think they should bulldoze a hole in it and then it won’t be a hazard. Then the water can drain out of it and it won’t be a hazard. Selectman Ruth said, “I think you better go down there and take a look at it. It won’t be that easy.” Selectman Tedford said, “I will go down there and take a look at it. I think it’s easy. I think if you bulldoze a hole in it and let the water drain out. That’s what I think. I’ll go down and look at it with you.” Selectman Ruth said “ Alright, and the other thing is that I would like to get the turtles out of there. And to do that we need to pump the water out and get 2 people in there to pick up the turtles and move them.” Selectman Fraser asks, “Who can pump it out? The Fire Department?” Selectman Ruth said, ” I think that they have a pump they can use without electricity.” Selectman Tedford said, “If they can pump it out, and once it is pumped out if we knock a hole in it. It won’t be a water hazard anymore, will it?” Selectman Ruth said, “When it rains, it fills up.” Selectman Tedford said, “I don’t agree with the idea.” Selectman Ruth said “ If I get a lot of resistance on this, then I think you are missing the point.” Selectman Tedford said, “I’m not missing the point. Those tanks have been like that for 5 or 6 previous boards, and you have done nothing about it. And you never did anything about them then.” Selectman Ruth said ”I did bring it up once before and nothing got about it.” Selectman Tedford said” I’ve been here with you for 4 years now and this is the first time you brought it up to me.” Selectman Ruth said ”Well I guess none of the other Board members are interested.” Selectman Fraser said, “ I would like to look at it, I agree something needs to be done. I would hate to not do anything. This is the first I’ve heard of it, and we need to get it pumped out.” Selectman Ruth said, “ The LGC came down and looked at the park, and they were concerned about a 7 ft. drop off. We are talking about a 12 ft. drop off over here.” Selectman Fraser asked, “Can we look at it this week? And address it next week?” Selectman Tedford said, “You go ahead and look at it. I have already looked at it, I’ve been up there a thousand times.” Selectman Ruth said, “I talked to John Gormalo, he has talked to Barry. He said Barry is very busy, but there are other people on the Fire Department that can run a pump over and pump it out. One of the volunteers is here tonight. His name is Corwin Karlson he is an expert on turtles. I have another person in town who wants to volunteer to rescue turtles he is a licensed trapper his name is Art Whipple.” Selectman Fraser said” Now what will you do with the turtles? Just put them back on the outside?” Selectman Ruth said “ We need someone to pump the water out of there, because there are snapping turtles in there. And right now there is duckweed growing and you can’t see below the surface. You don’t want to be reaching in there” Selectman Ruth said “I’d like to make a motion to have Barry or the Fire Department pump out the water so we can remove the animal life that is trapped in there.” Selectman Fraser said” I’ll second it for discussion to be sure it is something they can do.” Selectman Sepe said “I don’t want to lead volunteers onto property until Barry looks at it.” Selectman Tedford said, ”At one point treated water came out of those tanks. So, isn’t there a control valve that drains those tanks? Can’t that just be broken off and let it drain? Because those tanks used to released that water into the river.” Selectman Ruth said, “ They had pumps. The pumps were behind the manhole covers. There are probably lines that go into those wells. That is where the pump access goes. They don’t gravity drain. Selectman Tedford said, “ Before you call up Barry to pump it out, you should call up Rick Meleski and Dale. They have a sludge pump up there. Rick can tell you how to hook the waste pump onto the existing lines and drain the water that way.” Selectman Ruth said, “They are pretty rusted right now.” Selectman Tedford said, “Dig a hole with the backhoe and break a hole thru the wall, and let it drain.” Selectman Ruth said, ”I didn’t want to make a long project out of this. I’m just trying to save these turtles.” Selectman Tedford said, “If you break a hole then the water would come out quicker, so the turtles would be exposed so you could take them out. Rick should know where the inlet or the outlet is; either way the water comes in from the bottom and goes thru that circulation drain. So, you should be able to drain from the inlet or the outlet without getting inside.” Selectman Ruth said, ”A lot of that stuff is pretty old, and I don’t think those valves are going to work any more.” Selectman Tedford said, “They will if you hook a backhoe to them and break them off. You had a motion to have the Fire Department pump out the water, to be seconded after discussion. All those in favor say I. All opposed? ” The motion was opposed 4-1. Selectman Ruth said,” Shelly, I would like these minutes verbatim.”
Who needs a circus to come to town, we already have enough clowns.
Taken verbatim from Wednesday's BOS meeting;
Selectman Ruth would like to alert the Board to problems over at the tannery. Leroy is very concerned about liability issues. Selectman Ruth said, “There are holes where the old tanks were. Some depths of these tanks were about 12 feet. If someone falls in they won’t be able to get out. It isn’t fenced in any more. These are some pictures I took of where the leather factory was. These are different areas. These walls are approximately 12 feet high, and there is no way of getting out of it if you fall in. There are no ladders or access to the surface.” Selectman Sepe said, “If Leroy is concerned about it why isn’t he here speaking to us.” Gus said, ”These are my concerns. Leroy is concerned about the buildings. Selectman Fraser asks ”Did Leroy bring this to your attention?” Selectman Ruth said “No, somebody else had brought it to my attention because it was found that turtles are trapped in there now. Snapping turtles, Wood turtles, and Painted turtles are trapped inside these. Selectman Sepe clarified that this is not a secured property. Selectman Ruth said “First of all the turtles need to be removed before winter, or they will die in there. The water is about 2 feet deep. I think we should do something. Right now I have 2 people that are willing to help, one is a licensed trapper and the other is an individual from town who is willing to go down there and trap the turtles and take them out. Right now we have 2 feet of water in there, and I would like to get the Fire Department or someone with a portable pump to pump the water out.” Chairman Tedford suggests demolishing one wall. Selectman Ruth said, ”The holding tanks are 12 feet below the surface, and they will fill up again.” The Board is concerned that the tanks are 12 feet deep, and if someone falls in there is no way of getting up and out of these. Selectman Ruth said “Right now the bottom of them is probably water level, in the spring and the fall it’s going to be above.” Selectman Fraser asks, ”Now at one point were they fenced off ? Or has it always been this way?” Selectman Ruth said, “There was a fence around the whole property. But, the fence has been torn down. They are pulling some fence off where the sewer plant is. That whole fence maybe can be used over there until possible we sell it. The other thing that should be done is the brush and the debris around the wholes should be cleared. Chairman Tedford proposes boring some holes in it and letting it drain. Selectman Ruth said, “The bottom of it is below the water table. Especially in the spring, winter and the fall. Chairman Tedford said” Take a piece of equipment and knock a wall out and let it run in the ground. All it’s got to be is rainwater. You said there is snapping turtles in there?” Selectman Ruth said,” I think you have to go out there and take a look at it.” Chairman Tedford asked how turtles got in there. Selectman Ruth said “ The brush has grown up around the edge of the tank foundations, the turtles have crawled up and over, fallen in and can’t get out. I’m more concerned about a kid falling in and can’t get out. Selectman Ruth explains the pictures he passed around. Selectman Ruth said” I seriously think we have a serious liability problem there. Selectman Tedford asks, “How long has that been like that? 30 years, 20 years 15 years now all of a sudden it is a hazard?” Chairman Ruth said, ”It’s always been a hazard.” Selectman Tedford asks ”Why haven’t the previous boards addresses these issues then?” Selectman Ruth said “You want to make it a hazard when somebody dies in there?” Selectman Fraser said, “ I’ve never been aware of it. So, what do you think we can do?” Selectman Ruth said, “First of all I’d like to get the turtles out and I think we should clear the brush away from the edge of it and put a fence up around them. There are 3 places like that down there. It would take 300-400 yards of material to fence it in. Selectman Tedford said “Before doing anything make sure that Brownfield and everyone else is thru with that property. There was a big 1000-gallon tank up there that somebody demolished years and took away. These tanks have been there ever since the tannery closed now all of a sudden it is a hazard? Why didn’t they address it years ago?” Selectman Ruth said, “ I think they should have.” Selectman Tedford said ”It seems funny now it’s all hazard today and it wasn’t 10 years ago, 8 years ago, 7 years ago. Selectman Ruth said, “ You can’t have an in ground swimming pool that deep and not put a fence around it. You are required by law to have a fence. Selectman Tedford said, “That property used to be fenced in. So, we need to do more research on it, instead of talking about it all night.” Selectman Ruth said, “I would like something to happen very soon.” Selectman Tedford said “Maybe you could research it for the Board.” Selectman Ruth said, “I’ve done enough research on it, and it is a hazard.” Selectman Fraser said, “So we need to put the fence back up.” Selectman Ruth said “ I think we should fence around each individual unit, rather than fence the whole property like they have before.” Selectman Tedford said, ” I think they should bulldoze a hole in it and then it won’t be a hazard. Then the water can drain out of it and it won’t be a hazard. Selectman Ruth said, “I think you better go down there and take a look at it. It won’t be that easy.” Selectman Tedford said, “I will go down there and take a look at it. I think it’s easy. I think if you bulldoze a hole in it and let the water drain out. That’s what I think. I’ll go down and look at it with you.” Selectman Ruth said “ Alright, and the other thing is that I would like to get the turtles out of there. And to do that we need to pump the water out and get 2 people in there to pick up the turtles and move them.” Selectman Fraser asks, “Who can pump it out? The Fire Department?” Selectman Ruth said, ” I think that they have a pump they can use without electricity.” Selectman Tedford said, “If they can pump it out, and once it is pumped out if we knock a hole in it. It won’t be a water hazard anymore, will it?” Selectman Ruth said, “When it rains, it fills up.” Selectman Tedford said, “I don’t agree with the idea.” Selectman Ruth said “ If I get a lot of resistance on this, then I think you are missing the point.” Selectman Tedford said, “I’m not missing the point. Those tanks have been like that for 5 or 6 previous boards, and you have done nothing about it. And you never did anything about them then.” Selectman Ruth said ”I did bring it up once before and nothing got about it.” Selectman Tedford said” I’ve been here with you for 4 years now and this is the first time you brought it up to me.” Selectman Ruth said ”Well I guess none of the other Board members are interested.” Selectman Fraser said, “ I would like to look at it, I agree something needs to be done. I would hate to not do anything. This is the first I’ve heard of it, and we need to get it pumped out.” Selectman Ruth said, “ The LGC came down and looked at the park, and they were concerned about a 7 ft. drop off. We are talking about a 12 ft. drop off over here.” Selectman Fraser asked, “Can we look at it this week? And address it next week?” Selectman Tedford said, “You go ahead and look at it. I have already looked at it, I’ve been up there a thousand times.” Selectman Ruth said, “I talked to John Gormalo, he has talked to Barry. He said Barry is very busy, but there are other people on the Fire Department that can run a pump over and pump it out. One of the volunteers is here tonight. His name is Corwin Karlson he is an expert on turtles. I have another person in town who wants to volunteer to rescue turtles he is a licensed trapper his name is Art Whipple.” Selectman Fraser said” Now what will you do with the turtles? Just put them back on the outside?” Selectman Ruth said “ We need someone to pump the water out of there, because there are snapping turtles in there. And right now there is duckweed growing and you can’t see below the surface. You don’t want to be reaching in there” Selectman Ruth said “I’d like to make a motion to have Barry or the Fire Department pump out the water so we can remove the animal life that is trapped in there.” Selectman Fraser said” I’ll second it for discussion to be sure it is something they can do.” Selectman Sepe said “I don’t want to lead volunteers onto property until Barry looks at it.” Selectman Tedford said, ”At one point treated water came out of those tanks. So, isn’t there a control valve that drains those tanks? Can’t that just be broken off and let it drain? Because those tanks used to released that water into the river.” Selectman Ruth said, “ They had pumps. The pumps were behind the manhole covers. There are probably lines that go into those wells. That is where the pump access goes. They don’t gravity drain. Selectman Tedford said, “ Before you call up Barry to pump it out, you should call up Rick Meleski and Dale. They have a sludge pump up there. Rick can tell you how to hook the waste pump onto the existing lines and drain the water that way.” Selectman Ruth said, “They are pretty rusted right now.” Selectman Tedford said, “Dig a hole with the backhoe and break a hole thru the wall, and let it drain.” Selectman Ruth said, ”I didn’t want to make a long project out of this. I’m just trying to save these turtles.” Selectman Tedford said, “If you break a hole then the water would come out quicker, so the turtles would be exposed so you could take them out. Rick should know where the inlet or the outlet is; either way the water comes in from the bottom and goes thru that circulation drain. So, you should be able to drain from the inlet or the outlet without getting inside.” Selectman Ruth said, ”A lot of that stuff is pretty old, and I don’t think those valves are going to work any more.” Selectman Tedford said, “They will if you hook a backhoe to them and break them off. You had a motion to have the Fire Department pump out the water, to be seconded after discussion. All those in favor say I. All opposed? ” The motion was opposed 4-1. Selectman Ruth said,” Shelly, I would like these minutes verbatim.”
Who needs a circus to come to town, we already have enough clowns.
Sharra At It Again ..
Town of Winchester
Planning Board Minutes 7-19-10
Meeting opened: 7:00pm. Members present: Jack Marsh, Brian Moser, Margaret Sharra(Chair), Princess Blodgett (V. Chair), Gus Ruth (SR), Larry Hill (7:10pm) and Kim Gordon. Art Charland, John Paquarelli and Ken Cole are alternates present. Public present: Dick Drew
First order of business: The board continues the public hearing for Brian Moser’s subdivision application. B. Moser recuses himself. K. Cole and J. Pasquarelli will be sitting alternates. Dick Drew updates the board on the remaining issues. He gives the board a copy of a driveway maintenance agreement which will be incorporated into the easement. A copy of the State subdivision approval, wetland impact approval and the driveway permit is also submitted. He explains the culvert J. Marsh had requested was not needed per the Highway Superintendent. A 36” culvert was required in the driveway per the wetlands impact approval. In reviewing the driveway maintenance agreement and permit, the board had a few questions. L. Hill arrives and J. Pasquarelli then returns to the audience. If the backlot were sold first would that owner have the full expense of the driveway? Yes. It is noted the driveway permit was approved by the Fire Chief. L. Hill comments that this subdivision does meet requirements but it seems to have taken a lot of work and adjustments. Mr. Drew confirms this. L. Hill questions the sentence in the driveway maintenance agreement “ Whereas the applicant doesn’t agree”. Mr. Drew informs the board that wording will not be on the final plan. Mr. Drew changes and initials the agreement to omit that wording. The board accepts that. There are no other questions. G. Ruth moves to close the public hearing, K. Gordon seconds, all in favor. 7:22pm. G. Ruth moves to approve Brian Moser’s application as presented, subject to the driveway maintenance agreement be part of the deed. P. Blodgett seconds, all in favor.
Second order of business: K. Cole leaves and B. Moser is back on the board. The board reviews the minutes of 6-17-10 for approval. P. Blodgett moves to approve with typo errors corrected, K. Gordon seconds, all in favor. The board reviews the minutes of 6-21-10 for approval. K. Gordon moves to approve with changes, J. Marsh seconds, all in favor.
Third order of business: Other business. M. Sharra updates the board on RVD. She shows the board correspondence from Bart Mayer that states RVD’s plan will not be recorded until final conditions are met, a bond will be posted before any work is done on the property and substantial & active work must begin within one year of the court decision. There is also a letter from Sage Engineering stating the plan DES approved for the amended Alteration of Terrain Permit is the same plan the board has. The board also received a copy of NHDOT re approval for the driveway permit. The board has received no response from RVD on the DES complaint. M. Sharra also shows a copy of the final “financial” bill sent to RVD and then informed the board of Mr. Towne’s “right to know” request and what copies she made for him. There are some questions and comments from board members. K. Gordon has a list of questions she would like to ask the town’s attorney. Some of those questions are answered tonight in the update. The other questions she will email to M. Sharra and if the board agrees will be sent to the attorney. L. Hill reminds K. Gordon of the cost for legal opinions. K. Gordon and J. Marsh ask about the ZBA’s variance approval for RVD and if it has expired? The Zoning Ordinance states SE’s and variances will expire after one year of non use. M. Sharra replies K. Gordon & J. Marsh know the answer to that question. M. Sharra questions, if any applicant is working on obtaining approvals, ie. State, federal or local, is that working on the use? K. Gordon says the plan DES has that was used for the Alteration of Terrain Permit approval is not the plan the board has. She states she has been to DES and has a copy of the plan at home. The board has no comment because there is not sufficient information here. M. Sharra reminds the board about “conflict of interest”. If a board member takes it upon themselves to obtain information about an application that can be a reason to be recused. If the board directs a member to obtain information and bring it back to the board for discussion that is acceptable. B. Moser asks if M. Sharra is saying that K. Gordon cannot get public documents? M. Sharra said not at all, the concern is in what capacity is she obtaining information? The discussion continues about discussing applications outside of a meeting, opinions and relaying information to the public from individual members instead of proper channels at the town hall. J. Marsh posed a question on PSNH approvals, he believes things have changed in the last couple of years with PSNH and will that affect RVD? The board does not know. In closing the discussion, it appears RVD has three options at this time; post the bond, get the remaining approvals and begin work; not begin work; or come back to the board and ask for an extension of time. At this time there is nothing for the board to do on this case.
Sharra, as the ZBA secretary knows that RVD's ZBA variances have expired and that he needs to; according to the board, go back before them at a public hearing and start all over again; but she continues to ignore that fact and has not only communicated with RVD by mail; but has had phone conversations with him as well. This is clearly a violation of law and exparte' communication which she has already been found guilty of by Superior Court Judge Brian Tucker in the past. Does she not get the message or is it she just doesn't care? He can NOT do anything without these variances and she knows it; but instead continues to mislead the board with her erroneous opinions.RVD also has not received state septic or state water approvals; both conditions of precedent which must be met before any final approval can be given. He has NOT met all of the conditions set forth in the Conditional Approval given to him by the board in April of 2008 and yet Sharra continues to act as though he has. RVD has violated his Alteration of Terrain permit by constructing an illegal retention pond on his property to gather storm water run-off; yet this plan; drawn up by Carl Hagstrom and though approved by Sharra and the board, was never submitted to the DES and violates the law. This retention basin failed and allowed run-off to flood the highway twice, fill the state roadway storm drains with sand and silt bad enough that the state deployed two dump trucks and a bucket machine to clean them out and run-off from his site has run onto abutters properties and flooded out a section off land adjacent to the state "Rails and Trails" property across the other side of the highway. A complaint was filed by the abutters with the town (no action taken) and the state of NH resulting in an investigation by DES and a letter sent to the town and RVD informing them both of the serious violation and the illegal retention pond and that RVD had until April 20th to remedy the problems. No action has been taken by RVD and the matter in now in the hands of the DES's legal bureau. Run-off continues to flow onto adjacent properties and through the road drains to this day. RVD also does not have a Joint Use agreement with PSNH, a must have permit to allow him access under the power lines, also a part of his so-called Final Approval with conditions.
We could go on for another couple of pages but we hope you all get what we're saying. Why hasn't the board denied this application for non-compliance and serious violations and instead giving him the green light to continue on? Why is the board giving RVD such special treatment and yet they make other applicants toe the mark and follow all of the rules? It's time for this board to start acting like a real board instead of following Sharra's lead; otherwise ..
Can we all say together ... another lawsuit, another $25 - $30k in legal fees ( perhaps another new car for Barton Mayer? )
Other updates are; M. Sharra and G. Ruth attended and erosion control workshop in Concord last week. They both returned with good information and new books for reference from DES on the subject. M. Sharra informed the board of her discussion with Bob Gray on the impact fees. If the officials are not going to use the CIP then maybe we should not impose impact fees at this time. The board still has work to do on understanding these fees. Other projects; M. Sharra gives K. Gordon a copy of the work she has completed on revisions to the site plan review regulations. There are finally some returns on the CIP requests and they will be copied and given to B. Moser, G. Ruth and A. Charland. There has not been a response from the school on the CIP and B. Moser requests to send another letter. The members working on the table of usage need to get information ready for discussion. Only one hearing is on the agenda for the next meeting so the rest of the meeting will be a workshop.
J. Marsh moves to adjourn, L. Hill seconds, all in favor. 8:30pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted: Margaret Sharra, Land Use
Minutes approved by the board on:
Minutes signed by: Margaret Sharra, Chair
Planning Board Minutes 7-19-10
Meeting opened: 7:00pm. Members present: Jack Marsh, Brian Moser, Margaret Sharra(Chair), Princess Blodgett (V. Chair), Gus Ruth (SR), Larry Hill (7:10pm) and Kim Gordon. Art Charland, John Paquarelli and Ken Cole are alternates present. Public present: Dick Drew
First order of business: The board continues the public hearing for Brian Moser’s subdivision application. B. Moser recuses himself. K. Cole and J. Pasquarelli will be sitting alternates. Dick Drew updates the board on the remaining issues. He gives the board a copy of a driveway maintenance agreement which will be incorporated into the easement. A copy of the State subdivision approval, wetland impact approval and the driveway permit is also submitted. He explains the culvert J. Marsh had requested was not needed per the Highway Superintendent. A 36” culvert was required in the driveway per the wetlands impact approval. In reviewing the driveway maintenance agreement and permit, the board had a few questions. L. Hill arrives and J. Pasquarelli then returns to the audience. If the backlot were sold first would that owner have the full expense of the driveway? Yes. It is noted the driveway permit was approved by the Fire Chief. L. Hill comments that this subdivision does meet requirements but it seems to have taken a lot of work and adjustments. Mr. Drew confirms this. L. Hill questions the sentence in the driveway maintenance agreement “ Whereas the applicant doesn’t agree”. Mr. Drew informs the board that wording will not be on the final plan. Mr. Drew changes and initials the agreement to omit that wording. The board accepts that. There are no other questions. G. Ruth moves to close the public hearing, K. Gordon seconds, all in favor. 7:22pm. G. Ruth moves to approve Brian Moser’s application as presented, subject to the driveway maintenance agreement be part of the deed. P. Blodgett seconds, all in favor.
Second order of business: K. Cole leaves and B. Moser is back on the board. The board reviews the minutes of 6-17-10 for approval. P. Blodgett moves to approve with typo errors corrected, K. Gordon seconds, all in favor. The board reviews the minutes of 6-21-10 for approval. K. Gordon moves to approve with changes, J. Marsh seconds, all in favor.
Third order of business: Other business. M. Sharra updates the board on RVD. She shows the board correspondence from Bart Mayer that states RVD’s plan will not be recorded until final conditions are met, a bond will be posted before any work is done on the property and substantial & active work must begin within one year of the court decision. There is also a letter from Sage Engineering stating the plan DES approved for the amended Alteration of Terrain Permit is the same plan the board has. The board also received a copy of NHDOT re approval for the driveway permit. The board has received no response from RVD on the DES complaint. M. Sharra also shows a copy of the final “financial” bill sent to RVD and then informed the board of Mr. Towne’s “right to know” request and what copies she made for him. There are some questions and comments from board members. K. Gordon has a list of questions she would like to ask the town’s attorney. Some of those questions are answered tonight in the update. The other questions she will email to M. Sharra and if the board agrees will be sent to the attorney. L. Hill reminds K. Gordon of the cost for legal opinions. K. Gordon and J. Marsh ask about the ZBA’s variance approval for RVD and if it has expired? The Zoning Ordinance states SE’s and variances will expire after one year of non use. M. Sharra replies K. Gordon & J. Marsh know the answer to that question. M. Sharra questions, if any applicant is working on obtaining approvals, ie. State, federal or local, is that working on the use? K. Gordon says the plan DES has that was used for the Alteration of Terrain Permit approval is not the plan the board has. She states she has been to DES and has a copy of the plan at home. The board has no comment because there is not sufficient information here. M. Sharra reminds the board about “conflict of interest”. If a board member takes it upon themselves to obtain information about an application that can be a reason to be recused. If the board directs a member to obtain information and bring it back to the board for discussion that is acceptable. B. Moser asks if M. Sharra is saying that K. Gordon cannot get public documents? M. Sharra said not at all, the concern is in what capacity is she obtaining information? The discussion continues about discussing applications outside of a meeting, opinions and relaying information to the public from individual members instead of proper channels at the town hall. J. Marsh posed a question on PSNH approvals, he believes things have changed in the last couple of years with PSNH and will that affect RVD? The board does not know. In closing the discussion, it appears RVD has three options at this time; post the bond, get the remaining approvals and begin work; not begin work; or come back to the board and ask for an extension of time. At this time there is nothing for the board to do on this case.
Sharra, as the ZBA secretary knows that RVD's ZBA variances have expired and that he needs to; according to the board, go back before them at a public hearing and start all over again; but she continues to ignore that fact and has not only communicated with RVD by mail; but has had phone conversations with him as well. This is clearly a violation of law and exparte' communication which she has already been found guilty of by Superior Court Judge Brian Tucker in the past. Does she not get the message or is it she just doesn't care? He can NOT do anything without these variances and she knows it; but instead continues to mislead the board with her erroneous opinions.RVD also has not received state septic or state water approvals; both conditions of precedent which must be met before any final approval can be given. He has NOT met all of the conditions set forth in the Conditional Approval given to him by the board in April of 2008 and yet Sharra continues to act as though he has. RVD has violated his Alteration of Terrain permit by constructing an illegal retention pond on his property to gather storm water run-off; yet this plan; drawn up by Carl Hagstrom and though approved by Sharra and the board, was never submitted to the DES and violates the law. This retention basin failed and allowed run-off to flood the highway twice, fill the state roadway storm drains with sand and silt bad enough that the state deployed two dump trucks and a bucket machine to clean them out and run-off from his site has run onto abutters properties and flooded out a section off land adjacent to the state "Rails and Trails" property across the other side of the highway. A complaint was filed by the abutters with the town (no action taken) and the state of NH resulting in an investigation by DES and a letter sent to the town and RVD informing them both of the serious violation and the illegal retention pond and that RVD had until April 20th to remedy the problems. No action has been taken by RVD and the matter in now in the hands of the DES's legal bureau. Run-off continues to flow onto adjacent properties and through the road drains to this day. RVD also does not have a Joint Use agreement with PSNH, a must have permit to allow him access under the power lines, also a part of his so-called Final Approval with conditions.
We could go on for another couple of pages but we hope you all get what we're saying. Why hasn't the board denied this application for non-compliance and serious violations and instead giving him the green light to continue on? Why is the board giving RVD such special treatment and yet they make other applicants toe the mark and follow all of the rules? It's time for this board to start acting like a real board instead of following Sharra's lead; otherwise ..
J. Marsh moves to adjourn, L. Hill seconds, all in favor. 8:30pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted: Margaret Sharra, Land Use
Minutes approved by the board on:
Minutes signed by: Margaret Sharra, Chair
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
